Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1105
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, March 27 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1105

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:00:06 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The Heathrow Declaration: A New Approach to ICANN Reform

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0362_01C1D4D6.EAB40240
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

All,

http://www.byte.org/heathrow/

Please see the above-noted url for an alternative ICANN reform proposal
crafted by Tucows. We invite all of you to review the materials located
there. We ask all of you to join the mailing list located there. Our hope is
that all of you will choose to use this alternative reform proposal as an
opportunity to provide your thoughts and input into the process.

We wish to be clear that we see this as an avenue not "the" avenue for
input. We hope that it proves useful in moving the discussion and debate
surrounding ICANN reform forward in a positive and cooperative manner.

Thanks in advance,

- -rwr

- ------=_NextPart_000_0362_01C1D4D6.EAB40240
Content-Type: text/x-vcard;
	name="Ross Wm. Rader.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Ross Wm. Rader.vcf"

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Rader;Ross;Wm.
FN:Ross Wm. Rader
ORG:Tucows Inc.;Innovation & Research
TITLE:Director, Innovation & Research
TEL;WORK;VOICE:416.538.5492
TEL;PAGER;VOICE:[email-masked]
TEL;WORK;FAX:416.531.5584
ADR;WORK:;Back corner;96 Mowat;Toronto;Ontario;M6K 3M1;Canada
LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=3DQUOTED-PRINTABLE:Back corner=3D0D=3D0A96 =
Mowat=3D0D=3D0AToronto, Ontario M6K 3M1=3D0D=3D0ACanada
URL;HOME:http://www.byte.org
URL;WORK:http://www.tucows.com
KEY;X509;ENCODING=3DBASE64:
    =
MIICeDCCAeGgAwIBAgIDBkCIMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAgUAMIGSMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTEVMBMG
    =
A1UECBMMV2VzdGVybiBDYXBlMRIwEAYDVQQHEwlDYXBlIFRvd24xDzANBgNVBAoTBlRoYXd0
    =
ZTEdMBsGA1UECxMUQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2VydmljZXMxKDAmBgNVBAMTH1BlcnNvbmFsIEZy
    =
ZWVtYWlsIFJTQSAyMDAwLjguMzAwHhcNMDExMjA1MTk1NDA0WhcNMDIxMjA1MTk1NDA0WjBB
    =
MR8wHQYDVQQDExZUaGF3dGUgRnJlZW1haWwgTWVtYmVyMR4wHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFg9yb3Nz
    =
QHR1Y293cy5jb20wgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBAOCjoNR8ejCtPJDVmFbU
    =
0g72Lu2hOtWUjXuwwbq85Bf0igIYwXIY83H5QX8Ib436TI0fS2imHLEw3cmzU1sU6NMIqctH
    =
/PyRfwPZd+D4uNP8vwaGeEJ5ZJmUfKbRPNyzv+Ts58sO1Y/f+Ou+SMaDHxMbzJRXfJmEoxZu
    =
t9Sm7EerAgMBAAGjLDAqMBoGA1UdEQQTMBGBD3Jvc3NAdHVjb3dzLmNvbTAMBgNVHRMBAf8E
    =
AjAAMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAgUAA4GBAL/mgUJCx/fGLlhzDHaP3uAFq9dh17nuIsgURT4rKBFN
    =
DLDOpm6UWe19rqy0iTQqtoUbP9FBQqqNt/0A1n+xOFe02RquUCFsgwu1E4D21tuQiMBQzild
    V3ES8RMZrdzTe5kfgQCo1h3R0UycnOmZpLPV9UFFcO0RyudIuGbynMwI

EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[email-masked]
EMAIL;INTERNET:[email-masked]
REV:20020326T192411Z
END:VCARD

- ------=_NextPart_000_0362_01C1D4D6.EAB40240--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:32:37 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Request for a Working Group

1. I don't like it.  ICANN has no relevant competencies.  And it leads to
function gallop.

2. I suggest as part of the ICANN reform we stop it.

On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> Michael,
> 
> Whether you like it or not, we currently regulate the registrar community by 
> way of contracts (such as the Registrar Accreditation Agreement).  These 
> contracts specify registrar obligations, and how they are to attend to 
> "Business Dealings, Including with Registered Name Holders" (section 3.7).  
> This puts the issue of registrar practices squarely within ICANN's purview, 
> and creating modifications to this contract language indeed falls within the 
> ICANN consensus process.  
> 
> Clearly we have a right to establish provisions to curtail nefarious business 
> practices in order to "enhance user choice and satisfaction".  
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:55:57 -0500
From: "J. William Semich" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Boston Working Group

I think this is an excellent time to consider reviving the Boston Working 
Group to shape an approach to restructuring ICANN. Any chance of that, Karl?

Bill Semich
.NU Domain

At 02:36 PM 3/21/2002, Karl Auerbach wrote:

>There are several reasons why the IANA contract should be transferred to a
>distinct and separate entity with no overlapping management or employees.
>
>   - Having IANA and ICANN as separate bodies would make it clear who is
>     deciding any particular question and who is taking any particular
>     action.
>
>     Today, with the overlapping personnel, it is virtually impossible
>     to distinguish the decisions and acts of IANA from those of ICANN.
>     And, due to the apparently non-existant cost accounting practices of
>     ICANN management, there is no way to apportion the actual costs to
>     each body.
>
>   - ICANN is in no financial position to be subdising the United States
>     government.  Yet that is what ICANN is doing when it undertakes
>     the IANA contract under a zero-dollar purchase order from the US
>     gov't.
>
>   - The IANA function is essentially a clerical job with vanishingly
>     few discretionary functions.  There is no need to throw IANA into
>     the political malstrom that is ICANN.
>
>                 --karl--
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:05:32 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Request for a Working Group

Michael,

ICANN's mission is defined within its Memorandum of Understanding with the 
U.S. Department of Commerce within which ICANN is required to "collaborate on 
the design, development, and testing of a plan for introduction of 
competition in domain name registration services, including:  development of 
an accreditation procedure for registrars and procedures that subject 
registrars to consistent requirements designed to promote a stable and 
robustly competitive DNS, as set forth in the Statement of Policy". 

That Statement of Policy, the White Paper, states:  "During the transition 
the U.S. Government expects to:  recognize the role of the new corporation to 
establish and implement DNS policy and to establish terms (including 
licensing terms) applicable to new and existing gTLDs and registries under 
which registries, registrars and gTLDs are permitted to operate".  It goes on 
to state:  "As outlined in appropriate organizational documents, (Charter, 
Bylaws, etc.) the new corporation should:  direct the Interim Board to 
develop policies for the addition of TLDs, and establish the qualifications 
for domain name registries and domain name registrars within the system". 

ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement is a contract that was created in 
compliance with our mission directives that granted ICANN the right to 
establish operational terms applicable to registrars.  That you believe that 
ICANN should re-define its mission is immaterial.  Until such time as the MoU 
is amended, we must live with the mission that we have been given.  That 
mission allows us to establish qualifications for registrars, and I seek to 
review and amend those qualifications to better protect the registrant 
interest.

I'm curious, what role do you see for either registrants or the At-Large in 
ICANN if their user interests are only to be satisfied within the context of 
action on the part of national agencies?

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:24:42 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  Request for a Working Group

Oh come on.  ICANN's restructuring plan bears no relation to the white
paper or the MOU.  Everything is on the table, up for grabs.

Let's do it right.

I see a very very light ICANN, focused on minimal technical criteria.  The
issues of consumer law and the like belong where they are dealt with by
trained professionals.

I don't think the US should set world consumer law.  Nor should ICANN.

My ideal ICANN would have so few 'policy' duties that we would agree
collectively that elections were not worth the trouble....

On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> Michael,
> 
> ICANN's mission is defined within its Memorandum of Understanding with the 
> U.S. Department of Commerce within which ICANN is required to "collaborate on 
> the design, development, and testing of a plan for introduction of 
> competition in domain name registration services, including:  development of 
> an accreditation procedure for registrars and procedures that subject 
> registrars to consistent requirements designed to promote a stable and 
> robustly competitive DNS, as set forth in the Statement of Policy". 
> 
> That Statement of Policy, the White Paper, states:  "During the transition 
> the U.S. Government expects to:  recognize the role of the new corporation to 
> establish and implement DNS policy and to establish terms (including 
> licensing terms) applicable to new and existing gTLDs and registries under 
> which registries, registrars and gTLDs are permitted to operate".  It goes on 
> to state:  "As outlined in appropriate organizational documents, (Charter, 
> Bylaws, etc.) the new corporation should:  direct the Interim Board to 
> develop policies for the addition of TLDs, and establish the qualifications 
> for domain name registries and domain name registrars within the system". 
> 
> ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement is a contract that was created in 
> compliance with our mission directives that granted ICANN the right to 
> establish operational terms applicable to registrars.  That you believe that 
> ICANN should re-define its mission is immaterial.  Until such time as the MoU 
> is amended, we must live with the mission that we have been given.  That 
> mission allows us to establish qualifications for registrars, and I seek to 
> review and amend those qualifications to better protect the registrant 
> interest.
> 
> I'm curious, what role do you see for either registrants or the At-Large in 
> ICANN if their user interests are only to be satisfied within the context of 
> action on the part of national agencies?
> 
> 
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:37:14 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: anyone notice fallout from this?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "John R. LoVerso" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 3:26 PM
Subject: anyone notice fallout from this?

> ------- Start of forwarded message -------
> This document describes the 'Root Fix for the .US Top Level Domain'.  Root
> Fix is a series of actions taken by the Open Root Server Confederation
> (ORSC) to prevent the destabilization of the DNS due to ICANN's
> introduction of colliding top level domains.  This document describes the
> actions taken bythe ORSC to remedy the collateral damage that has been
> directly caused to the .US top level domain in non-ICANN root systems.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-higgs-schneiders-root-fix-us-00.tx
t
> ------- End of forwarded message -------

Lets get something straight.
1. ORSC and Inclusive Namespace roots did not cause this problem, Neustar
did
by deliberatly moving the .US nameservers under BIZ.
2. ICANN's versionof .BIZ is the collider.

No damage has been done that hasn't already been fixed.

John
- ---
AGN Domain Name Services
http://www.adns.net
Censorship-Free GA list: http://dns-o.org/listinfo/ga

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:46:54 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Request for a Working Group

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 3:24 PM
Subject: [ga] Re: Request for a Working Group

> Oh come on.  ICANN's restructuring plan bears no relation to the white
> paper or the MOU.  Everything is on the table, up for grabs.
>
> Let's do it right.
>
> I see a very very light ICANN, focused on minimal technical criteria.  The
> issues of consumer law and the like belong where they are dealt with by
> trained professionals.
>
> I don't think the US should set world consumer law.  Nor should ICANN.
>
> My ideal ICANN would have so few 'policy' duties that we would agree
> collectively that elections were not worth the trouble....
>

With respect to selecting new TLDs, it would be a
mechanical process if done correctly.

1. Someone applies for a new TLD.

2. ICANN checks to make sure that the applicant
    was the first to claim the TLD and use it in business and commerce.

3. ICANN checks to see if they have at least
    two servers with SOA for the TLD

4. ICANN places the records into the root zone file.

That is ALL they should be doing for TLD selections.
There is no room for deciding anything, in this case.
In other duties, perhaps a bit more discretion will be involved.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:55:31 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Request for a Working Group

Nice dream, but not practical.

There needs to be higher standards and minimum requirements.  The FCFS
and all you need is a couple nameservers standard is just not
practical except in small anarchy namespaces like the various
alt.root namespaces where practicality isn't an issue.

Tuesday, Tuesday, March 26, 2002, 1:46:54 PM, John Palmer wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 3:24 PM
> Subject: [ga] Re: Request for a Working Group

>> Oh come on.  ICANN's restructuring plan bears no relation to the white
>> paper or the MOU.  Everything is on the table, up for grabs.
>>
>> Let's do it right.
>>
>> I see a very very light ICANN, focused on minimal technical criteria.  The
>> issues of consumer law and the like belong where they are dealt with by
>> trained professionals.
>>
>> I don't think the US should set world consumer law.  Nor should ICANN.
>>
>> My ideal ICANN would have so few 'policy' duties that we would agree
>> collectively that elections were not worth the trouble....
>>

> With respect to selecting new TLDs, it would be a
> mechanical process if done correctly.

> 1. Someone applies for a new TLD.

> 2. ICANN checks to make sure that the applicant
>     was the first to claim the TLD and use it in business and commerce.

> 3. ICANN checks to see if they have at least
>     two servers with SOA for the TLD

> 4. ICANN places the records into the root zone file.

> That is ALL they should be doing for TLD selections.
> There is no room for deciding anything, in this case.
> In other duties, perhaps a bit more discretion will be involved.

> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 14:24:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Boston Working Group

On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, J. William Semich wrote:

> I think this is an excellent time to consider reviving the Boston Working 
> Group to shape an approach to restructuring ICANN. Any chance of that, Karl?

We never went away.  The BWG is very alive and very well.  And we've been
discusing the nature of ICANN restructuring ever since ICANN was initially
structured.  ;-)

There are various aspects of reshaping ICANN that go beyond what has been
addressed to date.

One of these has to do with the actual personality of ICANN.  It is my
sense that structural changes without personnel changes would be simply a
facade masking an unchanged landscape.

I personally prefer incremental rather than revolutionary change to ICANN.  
But one man's incremental is another man's revolutionary. ;-)

One of the aspects of the original BWG proposal, in addition to
circumscribing ICANN's powers and mandating strong public participation,
was the requirement for solid, conservative business processes.  I have
yet to see ICANN demonstrate competence in such matters.

To some extent we may find that exisiting legal structures - corporate
models - may be inadequate.  I have proposed, for example, that the unlike
the board-has-ultimate-responsibility premise of corporations, ultimate
responsibility for behavior of a Private Governmental Organization (PGO)
be split among multiple bodies.  See: 
http://www.cavebear.com/rw/prescription-to-promote.pdf

		--karl--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:03:24 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Request for a Working Group

At 16:24 26/03/02 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

>I don't think the US should set world consumer law.  Nor should ICANN.

Michael, such a broad statement is easy to agree with.

But, since the actions of registrars are global and national laws are 
inadequate to deal with them, how do registrants get their protection?

Isn't the contract mechanism the only way of quick and effective 
enforcement of regulated behavior?

- --Joop

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:18:54 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Request for a Working Group

That's easy: they choose carefully where to register.  Either they trust
the registrar and its reputation, or they register close to home, where
it's easier to get the legal process in action....or they use a register
in a jurisdiction with good consumer law.

The contract mechanism is only a good means of protecting consumers if
they get to bargain for it.  They don't, so it isn't.  

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 16:24 26/03/02 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> 
> >I don't think the US should set world consumer law.  Nor should ICANN.
> 
> Michael, such a broad statement is easy to agree with.
> 
> But, since the actions of registrars are global and national laws are 
> inadequate to deal with them, how do registrants get their protection?
> 
> Isn't the contract mechanism the only way of quick and effective 
> enforcement of regulated behavior?
> 
> 
> --Joop
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:26:32 +0200
From: "Eugenie Staicut" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Web page for the ICANN meeting in Bucharest

Dear all,

I wish to inform you that the web page for the next ICANN meeting which will 
be held in Bucharest has been setup.
The address is www.icann.ro.
Hotel and visa information has been posted.
For your convenience we would advise you to book as
soon as possible a hotel.

Yours sincerely,

Eugenie Staicut

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:30:06 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Request for a Working Group

From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Request for a Working Group

>
> Nice dream, but not practical.
>
> There needs to be higher standards and minimum requirements.  The FCFS
> and all you need is a couple nameservers standard is just not
> practical except in small anarchy namespaces like the various
> alt.root namespaces where practicality isn't an issue.
>
>

We do it all of the time in the inclusive namespace. Wonder why around 10+%
of the internet finds
our policy to be acceptable.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:31:25 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Request for a Working Group

ummmmmm,   maybe we should define first extremely precisely exactly *what*
we want to regulate.....then decide if contract is the way to go or not?

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 16:24 26/03/02 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>
> >I don't think the US should set world consumer law.  Nor should ICANN.
>
> Michael, such a broad statement is easy to agree with.
>
> But, since the actions of registrars are global and national laws are
> inadequate to deal with them, how do registrants get their protection?
>
> Isn't the contract mechanism the only way of quick and effective
> enforcement of regulated behavior?
>
> --Joop
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:43:06 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Request for a Working Group

At 18:18 26/03/02 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>That's easy: they choose carefully where to register.  Either they trust
>the registrar and its reputation, or they register close to home, where
>it's easier to get the legal process in action....or they use a register
>in a jurisdiction with good consumer law.

Sorry, Michael I see this "market-mechanism" as not-working for the moment.

1. people don't want to transfer registrations already registered (too much 
hassle, too much risk that something may go wrong)
2. many jurisdictions have worse consumer laws than the US or have local 
registrar monpolies.
3. Registrar reputations are still in the process of being made. People 
have no way  to distinguish the cows from the cowboys.:)

>The contract mechanism is only a good means of protecting consumers if
>they get to bargain for it.  They don't, so it isn't.

That is true. And that is why people sign up for Icann at Large  hoping to 
get in that position.

- --Joop

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 00:47:48 +0100 (MET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: anyone notice fallout from this?

In the dotPRO namespace there will be no colliders if all Registrants register with http://nic.pro.xs2.net in addition!

Isn't that a great news!?

nic.PRO is supported by:
- - Common Interest Network Information Center Society
- - Name.Space
- - Open Root Server Confederation
- - The PacificRoot 

check here for details:
http://root-dns.org/VueDig/VueDig_tld.php?tld=nic.pro&record=NS

Best regards,
Simon

http://nic.pro.xs2.net
nic.PRO - the original .PRO third level domain registry!

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: 'John R. LoVerso' <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 3:26 PM
> Subject: anyone notice fallout from this?
> > ------- Start of forwarded message -------
> > This document describes the 'Root Fix for the .US Top Level Domain'.  Root
> > Fix is a series of actions taken by the Open Root Server Confederation
> > (ORSC) to prevent the destabilization of the DNS due to ICANN's
> > introduction of colliding top level domains.  This document describes the
> > actions taken bythe ORSC to remedy the collateral damage that has been
> > directly caused to the .US top level domain in non-ICANN root systems.
> >
> > A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> >
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-higgs-schneiders-root-fix-us-00.tx
> t
> > ------- End of forwarded message -------
> Lets get something straight.
> 1. ORSC and Inclusive Namespace roots did not cause this problem, Neustar
> did
> by deliberatly moving the .US nameservers under BIZ.
> 2. ICANN's versionof .BIZ is the collider.
> No damage has been done that hasn't already been fixed.
> John
> ---
> AGN Domain Name Services
> http://www.adns.net
> Censorship-Free GA list: http://dns-o.org/listinfo/ga
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ('unsubscribe ga' in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:45:22 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  Request for a Working Group

ICANN contracts are only likely to be better than contracts made by an
individual if it also takes on the role of monitoring quality of the
service, checking contract compliance and reviewing user satisfaction. There
is an argument to be made for encouraging some form of centralized oversight
to prevent fraud and so on, while stopping short of contract enforcement.
This would be better than an ICANN that agrees contracts without being
accountable, which is the worst of all worlds.

Joanna

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Joop
Teernstra
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 6:43 PM
To: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Request for a Working Group

At 18:18 26/03/02 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>That's easy: they choose carefully where to register.  Either they trust
>the registrar and its reputation, or they register close to home, where
>it's easier to get the legal process in action....or they use a register
>in a jurisdiction with good consumer law.

Sorry, Michael I see this "market-mechanism" as not-working for the moment.

1. people don't want to transfer registrations already registered (too much
hassle, too much risk that something may go wrong)
2. many jurisdictions have worse consumer laws than the US or have local
registrar monpolies.
3. Registrar reputations are still in the process of being made. People
have no way  to distinguish the cows from the cowboys.:)

>The contract mechanism is only a good means of protecting consumers if
>they get to bargain for it.  They don't, so it isn't.

That is true. And that is why people sign up for Icann at Large  hoping to
get in that position.

- --Joop

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 20:04:40 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Consensus on consensus?

Karl Auerbach in his "Prescription-to-Promote" has argued that:  "The concept 
of "consensus" must be discarded", with all decisions to be based on counted 
voting using clearly defined procedures such as Robert's Rules.   Stuart Lynn 
has likewise argued that a private sector body, based on consensus and 
consent, has been shown to be impractical.  

This begs the question... is it time to replace the consensus process?  If 
so, how do we avoid establishing a structural model that relegates certain 
groups automatically to minority status?   ICANN seems to be enamoured with 
voting blocks... Can we move to a one-man/one-vote mechanism, and will such a 
move be accompanied with full membership rights for all participants?  

ICANN doesn't have the greatest track record with respect to honoring 
consensus... can we expect it to honor an actual vote of the complete 
membership?  More questions than answers at this point...

for Karl's treatise, see:  
http://www.cavebear.com/rw/prescription-to-promote.pdf

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 20:07:37 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Request for a Working Group

I'm sorry but the idea of everyone trying to regulate everyone else for
their own benefit is a sure road to disaster...

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 18:18 26/03/02 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> >That's easy: they choose carefully where to register.  Either they trust
> >the registrar and its reputation, or they register close to home, where
> >it's easier to get the legal process in action....or they use a register
> >in a jurisdiction with good consumer law.
> 
> Sorry, Michael I see this "market-mechanism" as not-working for the moment.
> 
> 1. people don't want to transfer registrations already registered (too much 
> hassle, too much risk that something may go wrong)
> 2. many jurisdictions have worse consumer laws than the US or have local 
> registrar monpolies.
> 3. Registrar reputations are still in the process of being made. People 
> have no way  to distinguish the cows from the cowboys.:)
> 
> >The contract mechanism is only a good means of protecting consumers if
> >they get to bargain for it.  They don't, so it isn't.
> 
> That is true. And that is why people sign up for Icann at Large  hoping to 
> get in that position.
> 
> 
> --Joop
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1105
*************************