Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1107
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, March 27 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1107

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

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 01:11:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus on consensus?

On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, William S. Lovell wrote:

> I've reviewed Karl's "Prescription-to-Promote" email, and I must say
> that he is, for once, uncharacteristically dead wrong

I'd like to insert a minor correction - if I am dead wrong, it wouldn't be
"for once".  I'm a practiced expert at being wrong.  I've had some real
buzzards of ideas over the years - For instance, back in the very early
1980's, when I first saw the new IBM PC, I said that it didn't have enough
power to run networking code.

On the other hand, having experienced plenty of errors - either of my own
making or contributed by others, I've come to appreciate a bit of formal
procedure that encapsulates the wisdom of those who came before.

Check out http://www.bitshift.org/archives/rror.shtml These are a version
of Roberts Rules that have been modified for use in an electronic forum.  
There are still many of the things that you object to.  However, I find
them necessary to deal with the "tyranny of the chairman" problem.

For years I've watched electronic forums move from the nice-n-friendly 
mode in which things move quickly into non-procedural chaos.  This is why 
I find process, particularly formalized procedures extremely important.

		--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 09:47:26 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Request for a Working Group

A distributed environment is like a population. I never heard of any 
government contracting the law individually with each of its citizens. Even 
privileges (private law) are limited and establish derogations to the law, 
not full substitution. Also privileges are to give a benefit to someone, 
not to benefit the clerk writing them: in the ICANN system privileges are 
adding constraints to a non existing common law. Anyone heard about such a 
baroque legal system? If yes how long did it last?
Jefsey

On 20:53 26/03/02, Jonathan Weinberg said:
>Danny --
>
>         ICANN has by now signed a variety of contracts, drafted without
>community input or consensus support, under which it has come to regulate
>a bunch of different aspects of registry and registrar conduct.  Many of
>us think that ICANN is using these contracts to control matters that are
>*not* "squarely within its purview."  We can argue about whether any
>particular piece of regulation is within ICANN's mission, properly
>understood, but that argument has to turn on the nature of the regulation
>in question.  The mere fact that regulation has been incorporated in a
>contract doesn't answer the question whether it is within ICANN's mission
>-- and the ideal of consensus shouldn't bar people from questioning
>contract provisions that didn't result from consensus processes.  (I'll
>grant you that the process leading to the registrar contract looks a lot
>better, from a consensus standpoint, when you compare it to the egregious
>registry contract negotiation process . . . )
>
>Jon
>
>
>Jonathan Weinberg
>[email-masked]
>
>
>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" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
>
>Jonathan Weinberg
>[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

- --
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 10:05:29 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus on consensus?

Please Danny, don't confuse what a consensus is (a total agreement should 
certain conditions be met) with what the ICANN pretends it to be (a 2/3 
majority vote by the smallest group where that majority can be met). Like 
it or not, the world is no more in democracy, it is in consensus. Watch 
around you: consensus is carried by the "community correct". Observe also 
that in quite all the democracies elections tend to be by 50/50 and low 
voter figures. This shows that people are equaly unatease with the current 
system they equally find inadequate. Yet no one know much today how a 
consensus works. One of our problems: by nature the Internet is an 
innovation and we meet the problems we contributed to create. jfc

On 02:04 27/03/02, [email-masked] said:
>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

- --
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 10:09:46 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Consensus on consensus?

This was one of the draugback of the democracy. This is addressed by 
consensus. Yet consensus gives only the general lines (everyone agree 
should some conditions be met). You are right the only protection we have 
is that the consensus translates into a general policy statement equally 
inforced (common law) so all the consensus prerequiste are equally enforced.
Jefsey

On 02:27 27/03/02, Johnson, David said:
>Any restructing plan must deal with the problem of the tyranny of the
>majority (or even supermajority).
>In a governmental structure, this might be handled by creating certain
>"rights" -- e.g., against "takings" or inequitable treatment.
>It's precisely the absence of such protections in the context of a private
>ICANN that gives rise to the need to construct a documented consensus,
>rather than just counting votes. (Even the votes of every individual
>participant, as Danny suggests, because even that doesn't confer legitimacy
>when the individual participants are self-selected and don't necessarily
>bear the burdens of the rules they collectively make.)
>
>I'm sorry to sound like a broken record on this, but ICANN's powers must be
>based on the "consent of the governed" -- and that requires that those
>required to follow the rules (and impacted by the rules) must agree to abide
>by them. For future rules, this inevitably means a "bargain" in which those
>signing up to follow ICANN's regime agree not to be irrational holdouts --
>but it simply cannot realistically lead to a regime in which those who might
>be bound by the rules agree to the outcome of a board resolution, or an at
>large vote, no matter what it might be, no matter how inequitably the
>burdens are distributed, etc.
>
>I acknowledge that very few in the ICANN process have seemed to "get" the
>idea of consensus (and that the idea has been much abused by false claims
>regarding its existence). And I agree with those who have suggested the
>value of some more formal (and open) processes to generate a record that an
>IRP could uphold. But all of the plans that have suggested re-jiggering
>board seats to create an authority that simply legislate rules ... miss the
>point ... and make the same mistake that the ICANN Board made in Singapore.
>
>For those who argue that consensus has failed because it's too hard to get a
>consensus on many issues, I must respond that: "you don't get it!" The point
>is NOT to make rules where there is substantial, principled disagreement
>from those with a stake. The point is to NOT make rules where there is such
>disagreement. (And to allow, in effect, local option.)
>
>Democracy is not the answer here. Because there is no way to define a
>satisfactory "demos" -- an engaged citizenry consisting of most of those
>affected by the rule making institutions.
>
>I personally think there is a way to shrink ICANN's mission back to the
>(still formidable) task of attempting to catalyze agreement on global issues
>that require coordination. The route mapped by too many of the "reform"
>proposals leads to creation of a global regulator that might be more
>"effective" but that would lack any claim to legitimacy based on "consent of
>the governed" -- in the sense that the welfare and goals of those affected
>by the rules would govern what rules are made. A much more promising route,
>in my view, is to introduce real competition at the registry level so that
>the competition between diverse rule sets (as adopted by registries) can
>allow the market to provide the voice for the "governed" to be heard. That's
>why it is important not to allow the development of objective minimum
>qualifications for new TLDs to slip off the agenda. And that's why those
>calling for reform, in various ways, need to think outside the box of
>traditional regulation and legislation -- and ask themselves when those
>voluntarily connecting to an inter-network should (and will) agree to abide
>(in the unforeseeable future) by policies with which they don't happen to
>agree at the time.
>
>The basic bargain that gave rise to ICANN was not (1) a delegation of power
>from the USG, (2) a conspiracy among a technical elite, or (3) an upwelling
>of virtual nation building by netizens. It was, instead, the shared view
>that everyone involved in the dns ought to be willing not to "hold out" for
>selfish advantage if most of those similarly situated and similarly affected
>were willing to go along with the general view that a global rule is needed.
>That's the deal. It's not about voting (though some voting might be useful
>to most the discussion along). It's not about empowering a new regulatory
>structure. It's about talking (hopefully, mostly, online) until we can
>figure out what most of those involved DO agree upon. It's about...
>consensus.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 8:05 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: 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

- --
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 16:48:13 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Request for a Working Group

At 20:07 26/03/02 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>I'm sorry but the idea of everyone trying to regulate everyone else for
>their own benefit is a sure road to disaster...

Yet, this idea did gain traction in Pericles' Athens.
It was though preferable over having a single tyrant trying to determine 
what everyone's benefit was.

- --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 11:03:19 +0100 (MET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: anyone notice fallout from this?

It is pure information which maybe looks like spam to you ;-)

John wrote about ICANN's introduction of colliding top level domains, especially about the .BIZ collider.
And I wrote that this cannnot happen in the .PRO name space.
RegistryPro introduces .med.pro , .law.pro and .cpa.pro later this year. But the .PRO TLD already exists in the Inclusive Namespace roots (ORSC, Pacific Root,...). This would mean colliding domain names!

But there is a solution: Someone was so wise :-) to reserve exactly the same domain names (.law.pro, .med.pro, .cpa.pro) in the (registry reserved! ;-)).

This has following benefits:
ICANN people always talk about Stability of the Internet and about Security. Now you can have it!
1. .PRO is a "non-colliding" TLD unlike .info and .biz
2. Professionals could register IDENTICAL domain names in the "legacy root" and in the Inclusive Namespace root. Therefore users could get the same information whether they surf the "legacy root" or the Inclusive Namespace roots.
3. Because IDENTICAL sites with domain names registered in two registries exist in the "legacy root" and in the "Inclusive Namespace roots" there could be a complete data loss in one registry. Moreover one root network could go down completely. The domain name and the website would still be fully functional in the other root network! 
That's the benefit of redundancy. 
ICANN TALKS about Stability and Security of the Internet, others take action.
4. Security issues are paramont in the .PRO name space, it would be used by professionals like lawyers or accountants. If professionals would only register their domain name with RegistryPro the possibility that e-mails would reach their corresponding e-mail addrsss is approx. 95%. And you know these e-mails would very likely contain confidential information.
Therefore a 100% solution is needed. If professionals would register their domain name with both registries they could make sure that NO e-mail message would get lost. 

This was 100% information.
Maybe it is a problem for you William and Eric that I don't write about the solutions and actions of a third party or person.
If this would come from a third party/person this wouldn't be spam, right? ;-)

Best regards,
Simon

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

> Yes that is pretty close to spam.  One could certainly make a case for it.
> Eric
> William X Walsh wrote:
> > Spam spam spam.
> >
> > Please keep it off the [email-masked] list.
> >
> > Tuesday, Tuesday, March 26, 2002, 3:47:48 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > > 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-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
- --
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 11:38:54 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: anyone notice fallout from this?

Did you contact the ICANN.PRO people and proposed them an alliance? You 
could multiply sales.  I suppose you have more active non controverted 
sites in the Open side than in the Legacy side from what they report. This 
could help both of you. It would make more sense to advertize for: "Two pro 
for the price of one" than ".info+.pro for the price of one".
I suggest the Open .info people to do the same as you do with .uk.info, 
.us.info etc... and to propose to the GAC. Far better when Open and Legacy 
Roots can join forces.
jfc

On 11:03 27/03/02, [email-masked] said:
>It is pure information which maybe looks like spam to you ;-)
>
>John wrote about ICANN's introduction of colliding top level domains, 
>especially about the .BIZ collider.
>And I wrote that this cannnot happen in the .PRO name space.
>RegistryPro introduces .med.pro , .law.pro and .cpa.pro later this year. 
>But the .PRO TLD already exists in the Inclusive Namespace roots (ORSC, 
>Pacific Root,...). This would mean colliding domain names!
>
>But there is a solution: Someone was so wise :-) to reserve exactly the 
>same domain names (.law.pro, .med.pro, .cpa.pro) in the (registry 
>reserved! ;-)).
>
>This has following benefits:
>ICANN people always talk about Stability of the Internet and about 
>Security. Now you can have it!
>1. .PRO is a "non-colliding" TLD unlike .info and .biz
>2. Professionals could register IDENTICAL domain names in the "legacy 
>root" and in the Inclusive Namespace root. Therefore users could get the 
>same information whether they surf the "legacy root" or the Inclusive 
>Namespace roots.
>3. Because IDENTICAL sites with domain names registered in two registries 
>exist in the "legacy root" and in the "Inclusive Namespace roots" there 
>could be a complete data loss in one registry. Moreover one root network 
>could go down completely. The domain name and the website would still be 
>fully functional in the other root network!
>That's the benefit of redundancy.
>ICANN TALKS about Stability and Security of the Internet, others take action.
>4. Security issues are paramont in the .PRO name space, it would be used 
>by professionals like lawyers or accountants. If professionals would only 
>register their domain name with RegistryPro the possibility that e-mails 
>would reach their corresponding e-mail addrsss is approx. 95%. And you 
>know these e-mails would very likely contain confidential information.
>Therefore a 100% solution is needed. If professionals would register their 
>domain name with both registries they could make sure that NO e-mail 
>message would get lost.
>
>
>This was 100% information.
>Maybe it is a problem for you William and Eric that I don't write about 
>the solutions and actions of a third party or person.
>If this would come from a third party/person this wouldn't be spam, right? ;-)
>
>
>Best regards,
>Simon
>
>http://nic.pro.xs2.net
>nic.PRO - the original .PRO third level domain registry!
>
>
>
> > Yes that is pretty close to spam.  One could certainly make a case for it.
> > Eric
> > William X Walsh wrote:
> > > Spam spam spam.
> > >
> > > Please keep it off the [email-masked] list.
> > >
> > > Tuesday, Tuesday, March 26, 2002, 3:47:48 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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-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
>--
>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: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 06:31:23 -0500
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Consensus on consensus?

William S. Lovell wrote:

> David Johnson, I might add, does understand what "consensus" means:
> "It's not about empowering a new regulatory structure. It's about talking
> (hopefully, mostly, online) until we can figure out what most of those
> involved DO agree upon. It's about... consensus."

"Consensus" is about gang rule: the most organized gangs rule [period]. 
 Anyone dreaming that "consensus" is a viable and valid form of decision 
making is either deluding him/herself or trying to delude others.  

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Toronto, Canada

- -- 
Decision-making on major issues is now vested in international institutions which are so remote from public influence, that the public has no idea what's going on. I mean, in the case of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), incidentally the Labor Advisory Committee report was never reported in the press, right, I'd be surprised if any of you know about it, here's a case where the government radically violated the law, demonstrated utter contempt for the democratic process, rammed through a secret executive agreement of enormous influence, wouldn't even let the one popular group that is supposed to see it by law, the labor- based group, even look at it, they write the report, and then the press censors it. All right, here we have the ultimate in the destruction of democracy, the ideal that everybody's been dreaming of. Not only is the rabble excluded, they don't influence policy, but they don't know what's in policy, and finally they don't know that they don't know. Virtually nobody knows that they don't know what is going on. Well, you know, now we've reached the ultimate. That's the ultimate possibility in the destruction of democracy.

- -Noam Chomsky, "Old Wine, New Bottles: Free Trade, Global Markets and Military Adventures"
the above article in its thoroughly engrossing entirety can be found at: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9302-uva.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: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 06:37:59 -0500
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus on consensus?

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Please Danny, don't confuse what a consensus is (a total agreement 
> should certain conditions be met) with what the ICANN pretends it to 
> be (a 2/3 majority vote by the smallest group where that majority can 
> be met). Like it or not, the world is no more in democracy, it is in 
> consensus. Watch around you: consensus is carried by the "community 
> correct". Observe also that in quite all the democracies elections 
> tend to be by 50/50 and low voter figures. This shows that people are 
> equaly unatease with the current system they equally find inadequate. 

Exactly, the voting public is sick of the farce that "elections" have 
become.  The voting public is sick of the "consensus" policies of the 
masters, and their refusal to turn out for so-called "elections" is only 
the first major sign of dissent to current "community correctness".

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Toronto, Canada  

- -- 
Decision-making on major issues is now vested in international institutions which are so remote from public influence, that the public has no idea what's going on. I mean, in the case of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), incidentally the Labor Advisory Committee report was never reported in the press, right, I'd be surprised if any of you know about it, here's a case where the government radically violated the law, demonstrated utter contempt for the democratic process, rammed through a secret executive agreement of enormous influence, wouldn't even let the one popular group that is supposed to see it by law, the labor- based group, even look at it, they write the report, and then the press censors it. All right, here we have the ultimate in the destruction of democracy, the ideal that everybody's been dreaming of. Not only is the rabble excluded, they don't influence policy, but they don't know what's in policy, and finally they don't know that they don't know. Virtually nobody knows that they don't know what is going on. Well, you know, now we've reached the ultimate. That's the ultimate possibility in the destruction of democracy.

- -Noam Chomsky, "Old Wine, New Bottles: Free Trade, Global Markets and Military Adventures"
the above article in its thoroughly engrossing entirety can be found at: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9302-uva.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: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:22:03 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Request for a Working Group

Athens had slaves.  Women were not enfranchised.  We can do better than
that.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 20:07 26/03/02 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> >I'm sorry but the idea of everyone trying to regulate everyone else for
> >their own benefit is a sure road to disaster...
> 
> Yet, this idea did gain traction in Pericles' Athens.
> It was though preferable over having a single tyrant trying to determine 
> what everyone's benefit was.
> 
> 
> 
> --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 hot 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: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:09:10 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] RE: Consensus on consensus?

David,

You have stated:  "I acknowledge that very few in the ICANN process have 
seemed to "get" the idea of consensus", and you have noted that "the point is 
NOT to make rules where there is substantial, principled disagreement from 
those with a stake".

My question to you is this:  even if every single person in this Assembly 
"got" the idea of consensus, why would we want to function within this 
environment if the Board itself is incapable of "getting" the same concept?  
A case in point... the Names Council by unanimous vote passed a resolution on 
the reservation of geographical and geopolitical names.  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/doc00010.doc  Discussion leading 
up to this vote included the following arguments:

Your comments assume that one can define "rights to strings" in a mechanical 
fashion; i.e., by preparing a list and then removing those names from DNS.  
That is wrong. It's bad policy, it won't work, ever.
     We went through this in talking about a list of "famous trademarks," 
remember? Such a practice was soundly rejected by the Internet community, and 
even the more intelligent members of the trademark bar recognize it as a 
disaster in the making.
     We all know how governments behave. To governments, the name space is 
another piece of territory, and they want to carve it up and draw boundaries 
on it and stick their flag in the middle. That process is fundamentally 
inimical to the growth and development of the Internet.  We need to reject 
that whole mentality. 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00138.html

This was a clear case of principled disagreement with the views of the GAC.  
How did the Board react to this resolution?  Rather than NOT making a rule, 
they convened a joint Board/GAC Committee (the .info Country Names Discussion 
Group) to route around the DNSO, and followed up by passing resolutions in 
Accra in defiance of the DNSO position.

If the Board remains at liberty to ignore "consensus" (whether you consider 
this example, or the rejection of the .org Task Force recommendations, or the 
blatant actions taken by the Board with respect to the VeriSign 
renegotiations), then why should the rest of us pretend that we are working 
within a "consensus framework"?

You wrote that consenus "requires that those required to follow the rules 
must agree to abide by them".  Apparently the Board does not seem to feel 
that they are required to "follow the rules".  Rather than remanding policy 
recommendations back to the originating SO (if they have issues with the 
recommendations), the Board instead proceeds to craft it's own policy even 
when such decision-making is not justified by the need for "prompt action" as 
stipulated by our Bylaws.

Consensus only works when everyone is on the same level playing field and all 
play by the same set of rules.  How do we reform ICANN in such a way that 
obligates the Board to respect consensus?
- --
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 09:38:20 -0500
From: "Johnson, David" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Consensus on consensus?

Danny,
- --
you wrote:
How do we reform ICANN in such a way that obligates the Board to respect
consensus?
- ---
My response is that that is just what the Independent Review Panel was for.
It's not too late to insist that a neutral and qualified group, fully
independent of the Board, be put in place. 

drj
- --
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 10:36:32 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Independent Review Panel

We need to get moving on proposals to constitute the IRP, and to submit 
recommendations to the Evolution and Reform Committee.  One possibility is to 
convene a panel drawn from International Dispute Resolution Providers such as:

Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre 
CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution 
The National Arbitration Forum 
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
U.K. Centre for Dispute Resolution
Comisión Interamericana de Arbitraje Comercial 
The Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia 
The St Petersburg International Commercial Arbitration Court 
The Court of Arbitration established within the Italian Association for 
Arbitration 
The Danish Institute of Arbitration 
International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce 
Commercial Arbitration Centre for the States of the Co-operation Council for 
the Arab States of the Gulf 
Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration  
The Singapore International Arbitration Centre  
Vietnam International Arbitration Centre at the Chamber of Commerce and 
Industry of Vietnam  
The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission 
Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration  
Center for Conciliation and Arbitration of Tunis  
Santiago Arbitration and Mediation Center 

Is this the direction that we want to take, or are there other suggestions 
that might be more valid?
- --
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 09:58:46 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: anyone notice fallout from this?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
To: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: anyone notice fallout from this?

> John and all assembly members,
>
> John Palmer wrote:
>
> > ----- 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
>
>   John, thank for this informational IETF draft..  When do you suspect it
> will become an informational RFC?
>

Don't know. Simon Higgs probably has a better idea.

>
> BTW, just to let you know, this URL doesn't exist...
>
It has been fixed.

Thanks
John

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1107
*************************