Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1111
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, March 30 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1111

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

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:32:03 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

could someone remember that the world is no part of the USA?
Only the US Anti Cybersquatting Act gives some crediblity to the position 
that an electronic pointer on comonly shared public tables has a value by 
itself. jfc

On 15:28 28/03/02, Dan Steinberg said:
>ummmmm again reiterating that I dont even play a bankrupty specialist on 
>TV, the
>relevance is fairly simple.
>Every asset (with exceptions natch or it would be too easy) of someone who is
>bankrupt....is potential $$$ for the creditors.
>A domain name...is an asset. The value of said asset can vary greatly, 
>just like
>listing 'car' as an asset can mean anything from a 15 year beater than can 
>only
>start going downhill to a $500k supercar, the value of a domain 
>name....might be
>something significant to creditors. And it does not matter who the creditors
>are, banks, finance companies, registrars, etc. It's the relevant 
>bankruptcy law
>that governs how allllll the assets are divided up among the creditors.  The
>'vested interest' has to get in line with the rest of the unsecured creditors
>and hope for something left over after the secured creditors have been fed.
>Attempting to do anything else via contract constitutes an attempt to 
>circumvent
>law, which is usually frowned upon.
>
>Hope this is a bit clearer.
>
>
>"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
>
> > > Second, if issues relating to bankrupty are going to be publically
> > discussed at
> > > all, I would suggest that bankruptcy specialists from the relevant
> > jurisdictions
> > > be called in to provide at least an overview of the applicable issues.
> > FYI,
> > > every jurisdiction that I know of (and I know so little about bankruptcy
> > that I
> > > refuse to even play a bankruptcy specialist on TV) has laws that look at
> > (and in
> > > some cases rolll back)  financial transactions of people as they sink to
> > prevent
> > > siphoning off assets that might otherwise be divided among creditors.
> >
> > It is a murky issue, but I fail to see the relevance. The clause in 
> question
> > states:
> >
> > "Instances when the requested change of sponsoring Registrar may be denied
> > include, but are not limited to:
> > ...
> > 2) A pending bankruptcy of the Registered Name holder
> > ..."
> >
> > If the losing registrar has been identified as a creditor in a company that
> > is in the process of declaring bankruptcy, the losing registrar has a
> > legitimate vested interest in ensuring that it's "soon-to-be-asset" isn't
> > transferred out to another registrar until such time that the actual
> > structure of the bankruptcy is declared and the asset details can be sorted
> > out by the relevent agencies.
> >
> > It might be appropriate to include the rest of the TF in further 
> discussions
> > on this subject to ensure an even distribution of issue data.
> >
> > -rwr
>
>--
>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

- --
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: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:01:01 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] http://wecann.com

Dear all,
Gary Osbourne has accepted to review may project of site. Garbiel Pinero to 
help with Spanish words. We have a volunteer for German. I will try to 
provide some French. If someone could help with Intalian, Portuguese, 
Arabic, Japanese, Chinese? I suppose the text will be kept very terse, but 
a review in the different languages might help. A list has been set-up 
about the site management for the various authors.

I suppose that something interesting for all of us to understand the 
propositions is to be able to ask questions to the authors (Danny, Ross, 
Lynn, Dave, ..). Thank you for rising questions. I will list a few of 
mines: we could aggregate them into a list of FAQs that each propent could 
respond to. They could then be used to build comparative tables.

1. do you think the ICANN is invested net leadership authority or net 
keeping duties?
2. do you think the ICANN should be equal to all through policy documents 
(IPC) or should match every specific situation though contracts?
3. do you think the ICANN constitution should consider US local tax/legal 
aspects or to be establish and to look for a location where its own 
requirements can be met?
4. do you think that competition fostering must be organized or should it 
come from the way the same rules apply to all?
5. in your opinion who are the real owners of the Internet: the 
registrants, the participating services, the governments, the Internet 
Participants at large (existing/future), the ICANN?
6. how do you think dedicated International aspects should be addressed? 
Through an union of national communities with dedicated interest groups, or 
an union of dedicated interest groups with their own national chapters, or 
a more sophisticated mix?
7. the number of TLD has very slightly increased, so has the number of 
protocol  number. The number of IP blocks has stayed the same. What are 
your reasons for a significant budget increase from the Jon Postel days? 
What are the criteria for it to expand instead of staying stable?
8. should the revenues from the ICANN result from a "tax" system to support 
a community need, and who should pay that tax? or from a contribution from 
its "clients" for the rendered services? On which principles?
9. we observe that the ICANN interfaces the external world through the SOs, 
clearly dedicated to each of its missions. Some ambiguities result from 
their rigidness and exclusive relations with designated constituencies. Do 
you think that the constituencies of stake holders is a good solution? Do 
you think there should be more, less of them? Do you think the 
constituencies should be able to relate with all the SOs they are concerned 
with?
10. the idea is that the BoD may include the most diversified team to be 
sure that it will include competence on every matter of ICANN 
responsibility and global interests. Do you agree with this? In most of the 
human institutions such a diversification and the risk of polarization are 
addressed through balanced direct and indirect elections - like in most of 
the democratic Congresses. Do you support that approach resulting in a 9 SO 
originated and 9 @large originated BoD? Why? Why would you prefer another 
system? Would you have successful examples of the kind of system you 
support in national or international organizations?
11. The organization of the DN sales force (Registrars) has gained 
importance and many specific problems have developed with the Registries. 
This makes the ICANN to look like a professional association without 
powers. How would you address that situation?  The same the IP addressing 
is increasingly perceived as a major problem. How ill you address that issue?
12. Transparency and consensus building are important issues complex to 
address in an international network environment. What are the methods or 
structural orientations you favor to impose transparency, reduce the bylaws 
fluctuations, improve the relations with the GAC and external organizations 
such as contents providers, Telcos, ITU/T, consumers, etc...

Jefsey 

- --
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: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 23:57:34 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: [admin] Posting rights of Jeff Williams temporarily suspended

Jeff ol pal,
how you doing?

can you answer? :-)

> Alex and all assembly members,
>   I only received ONE warning.  An d I indicated that I was not aware
> of the overage as well as made clear that I had sent out one other
> post yesterday AFTER you had sent me that ONE warning Alex,
> and I immediately responded (See copy) as well as discontinued
> posting to the DNSO GA list...  SO I would hereby wish to ask
> you to reconsider your position and suspension...
> Here is the post in response to you ONE (See references) warning
> to me:
> ======  Copy of post in response to Alex's ONE Warning follows =====
> Subject:  Re: [admin] POSTING LIMIT
>         Date:  Sat, 16 Mar 2002 20:34:26 -0800
>        From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
>  Organization:  INEGroup Spokesman
>          To:  Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>,
> [email-masked]
>   References:  1
> Alex,
>   Ok thank you for reminding me...  I just sent one more.  I didn't
> read this until I had already sent it.  Please pardon me for not keeping
> track on the limit.  I will do better in the near term.  Again please
> pardon my overage...  And again thank you for reminding me...
> Alexander Svensson wrote:
> > Jeff,
> >
> > You have today sent six mails to the GA mailing list.
> > As you know, the limit is five per day. If you send
> > any further mails, your posting rights will be suspended.
> >
> > Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:46:17 -0800
> > Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 03:33:47 -0800
> > Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 04:38:34 -0800
> > Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 04:38:34 -0800
> > Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 18:03:36 -0800
> > -------------------------------------
> > Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 18:20:37 -0800
> >
> > Regards,
> > /// Alexander
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> =============  End of copy ==================
> GA List Monitor wrote:
> > This is to inform you that the posting rights of Jeff
> > Williams <[email-masked]> have been suspended
> > for eight weeks because of repeated violation of the list
> > rules. The list monitor notes that Jeff Williams' posting
> > rights have already been suspended six times for list rule
> > violations. The list monitor also notes that Jeff Williams
> > has received warnings after breaking the posting limit --
> > this is the third occasion in a row. There is no indication
> > to the list monitor that the latest warnings have led to a
> > different posting behaviour.
> >
> > The rules for the GA mailing list have been established
> > by a vote of the General Assembly:
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
> > The posting limit has been set at *FIVE* postings per
> > person and calendar day, calculated according to the
> > sender's local time.
> >
> > This action may be appealed to the GA Chair. More information
> > about the list monitoring can be found at
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/GA.list-monitoring.html
> >
> > Best regards,
> > /// Alexander (wearing his list monitor hat)
> >
> > Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:43:39 -0800
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00967.html
> > Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:38:42 -0800
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00968.html
> > Thu, 14 Feb 2002 06:50:09 -0800
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00971.html
> > Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:55:49 -0800
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00974.html
> > Thu, 14 Feb 2002 08:03:18 -0800
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00975.html
> > Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:23:55 -0800
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00978.html
> > Wed, 27 Feb 2002 03:19:11 -0800
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01162.html
> > Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:10:26 -0800
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01170.html
> > Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:26:54 -0800
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01171.html
> > Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:14:07 -0800
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01174.html
> > Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:00:41 -0800
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01178.html
> > Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:14:24 -0800
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01179.html
> > Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:52:58 -0800
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01185.html
> > Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:46:17 -0800
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01523.html
> > Sat, 16 Mar 2002 03:33:47 -0800
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01525.html
> > Sat, 16 Mar 2002 04:38:34 -0800
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01527.html
> > Sat, 16 Mar 2002 17:41:34 -0800
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01534.html
> > Sat, 16 Mar 2002 18:03:36 -0800
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01537.html
> > Sat, 16 Mar 2002 18:20:37 -0800
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01540.html
> > Sat, 16 Mar 2002 20:31:00 -0800
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01545.html
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:03:59 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [admin] Posting rights of Jeff Williams temporarily suspended

Friday, Friday, March 29, 2002, 2:57:34 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Jeff ol pal,
> how you doing?

> can you answer? :-)

Is this really called for, or appropriate?

- -- 
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: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 13:29:42 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

At 12:43 29/03/02 +1100, Dassa wrote:

>Those wishing to get a balanced view of the organisation can always
>follow up on the appropriate forums.
Indeed.
The record of what has happened and who voted are at
www.democracy.org.nz/idno/democinaction.htm

The IDNO forum archive is here. 
http://lists.idno.org/pipermail/idno-discuss/2002-February/017472.html

Anyone interested in preserving the bottom-up structure of the IDNO should 
subscribe
<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
   interim webmaster
www.icannatlarge.com
Sign up and spread the word.

- --
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: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:19:25 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

Friday, Friday, March 29, 2002, 5:29:42 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 12:43 29/03/02 +1100, Dassa wrote:

>>Those wishing to get a balanced view of the organisation can always
>>follow up on the appropriate forums.
> Indeed.
> The record of what has happened and who voted are at
> www.democracy.org.nz/idno/democinaction.htm

Oh how amusing this is!

http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/teernstradefence.htm

You are claiming that this was your defence?

Nice little bit of rewriting of history there, Joop.

Your only defense when this process happened was to post a "Bring it
on" type message, and you presented NO DEFENSE at all!

ANY IDNO member who was there at the time can and will verify this.

It's nice how you have tried to rewrite history by adding all kinds of
garbage to your website now that the IDNO has stripped you of its
official website.  It's very amusing.

Joop you have sunk to new lows, and proven that the decision the IDNO
made with regard to your membership was appropriate.

Your new changes to the website, and attempt to claim they were the
"record of what has happened" only show what a sad and vindictive
person you are.

- -- 
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: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:44:29 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] GA rules?

Dear List Monitors:

Does the GA still have rules that stipulate that messages must be relevant to 
the business of the GA, and that the messages must observe a minimum of 
decorum, including not indulging in personal attacks or insults?  

The message posted at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00102.html 
does not appear to be relevant to the GA's business, and decorum seems to be 
seeking its lowest level.

- --
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: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:57:40 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA rules?

Friday, Friday, March 29, 2002, 6:44:29 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Dear List Monitors:

> Does the GA still have rules that stipulate that messages must be relevant to 
> the business of the GA, and that the messages must observe a minimum of 
> decorum, including not indulging in personal attacks or insults?  

> The message posted at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00102.html 
> does not appear to be relevant to the GA's business, and decorum seems to be 
> seeking its lowest level.

Much like your messages attacking the integrity of ICANN Board members
and Names Council members?  But that's ok, because it suits Danny's
agenda.

BTW, as a former chair of the GA, I would assume you know the proper
process for making a complaint to the moderators.  If you have a
problem with my post, then use the process. I stand by what I said.

- -- 
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: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:04:21 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA rules?

I concur. If we want to attract and keep quality people on this list, we
must raise standards above this kind of mindless nonsense.

Joanna

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 9:44 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] GA rules?

Dear List Monitors:

Does the GA still have rules that stipulate that messages must be relevant
to
the business of the GA, and that the messages must observe a minimum of
decorum, including not indulging in personal attacks or insults?

The message posted at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00102.html
does not appear to be relevant to the GA's business, and decorum seems to be
seeking its lowest level.

- --
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: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:12:10 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA rules?

Friday, Friday, March 29, 2002, 7:04:21 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> I concur. If we want to attract and keep quality people on this list, we
> must raise standards above this kind of mindless nonsense.

How nice that you criticize me, Joanna, but don't criticize Joop for
his posts, which were clear, if couched, attacks.

Joop is the one who brought this subject up, and Joop is the one who
posted doctored webpage links to make it look like something else
entirely happened.  And if someone had done that to you, you'd respond
angrily as well.

- -- 
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: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:41:18 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA rules?

On 2002-03-29 21:44:29 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:

>Does the GA still have rules that stipulate that messages must be 
>relevant to the business of the GA, and that the messages must 
>observe a minimum of decorum, including not indulging in personal 
>attacks or insults?

Yes.

>The message posted at 
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00102.html does not 
>appear to be relevant to the GA's business, and decorum seems to 
>be seeking its lowest level.

No complaint has been submitted to the list monitors at 
[email-masked], as far as I can see this.  If you want to 
complain about a specific message, please do so.

There's no point in publicly complaining about inactivity of the 
list monitor when you didn't even _try_ to draw his attention the 
message in question first.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:09:14 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] The public perception

Dear Danny,
this point is extremely well done. My analysis is that the key missing 
element is the Registrant Constituency.

1. this is obviously a member of the DNSO, hence the DNSO to stay.

2. the DNSO should be a place for Registrants to dialog with Registrars and 
Registries before suing them.

3. the Registrants constituency should have a major law firm on retainer to 
act on behalf of the Registrants.

4. this is why we had started, mostly with European and Asian support a 
Registrant Constituency bootstrap and informed the GA, the ccTLD and the 
BoD. With the intent to follow the Constituency set-up procedure. But that 
was just a few days before Lynn's earth break.

5. The main problem we identified were the ALSC, Dennis Jennings, Joe Sims, 
Philip Sheppard, Joop and you. (please note that this is not criticism, 
just a postriori evaluation. People want to do their best, but their vision 
and and agenda may confuse a lot).

Joop as the promoter of the IDNO and you as the promoter the Individual 
Constituency : you took over a need that everyone accept but you did not 
fully address it yet.  Dennis Jenning as the promoter of the Singapore 
compromise mixing DNSO and @large and Joe Sims accepting and integrating 
it. We identified and you rapported the problem at the WG-Review. Then the 
ALSC added to the confusion mixing individual stakeholders and registrants 
to capitalize on yours and Joop's efforts - as Esther is doing now - to 
try  to get a number. And now the icannatlarge.com adds to this confusion.

- - you have @large constituencies: individual users, individual site owners, 
non comm organizations, Businesses. They have many different concerns. One 
of them being the DNs.

- - you then have the DNSO constituencies: registries, registrars, resellers, 
registrants, IP people.

Among the registrants you have individual site owners, corporations, non 
comm, bulk registrants, resellers, etc. Confusing them is the reason why 
the DNSO is ineffective. The solution was quite simple and we worked hard 
together (you, Joanna, Sotiris, Eric, Joop, DPF, William, Karl, etc..) on 
it at the WG-Review. It was to help YJ Park in having the WG-R and the ALSC 
teaming with the same mission and duration to jointly reorganize the @large 
and the DNSO. Rendering to the @large what belongs to the netwide aspects 
and rendering to the DNSO what deals with the DNs. This dismisnished the 
weight of the NC and helped delaying the ICANN reforms. Is that why Philip 
killed the WG-R? or because he did not understand the Internet mechanics 
and wanted to protect the ICANN "stability"? Or just because it is not easy 
to chair a small group of opponents pretending (and actually) representig 
billions of people.

This is why I told you that the IDNO must decide now:
- - if they want now to keep as BC like approach for everything which 
individual site ownership, teaming with BC and probably an SME Constituency.
- - or if they want to be Registrant Constituency oriented, being the 
individual site owner part, aggregating with the Corporate and the Bulk 
registration administrators on technical issues.

In any case the RC must be established. Either in the DNSO or outside of 
it. It must propose the Registrants services like:
- - permanent registration solutions
- - anti-UDRP protection
- - legal representation
- - insurances
- - ICANN/TLDA/IETF etc representation
- - consumer organization relations
- - information and technical support

Jefsey

On 17:17 29/03/02, [email-masked] said:

>When one reads through the comments posted to ICANN's Public Forums at
>http://forum.icann.org/ one comes away with the impression that the public
>perception of ICANN's failure is directly tied to the belief that ICANN has
>chosen to do little or nothing to protect the public from the predations of
>abusive registrars and registries.
>
>The public has the expectation that ICANN is supposed to do "something", and
>is frustrated by the fact that ICANN rarely seems to act to resolve what many
>consider to be an ongoing spate of problems.
>
>When ICANN Staff fails to respond to allegations of fraudent practices posted
>to its Public Forums, then ICANN comes to be regarded as a useless paper
>tiger, an organization without teeth that either cannot or will not control
>those entities that are the sole source of its funding.
>
>The public expects ICANN to function as an industry regulator, and it cannot
>comprehend why ICANN does not act in a timely manner to protect registrants
>from the abusive business practices of certain industry players whose actions
>are purportedly governed by the terms of contracts established with ICANN.
>
>ICANN's point of view has been summarized in these comments:
>
>Louis Touton: The way this comes up in practice is that ICANN gets dozens,
>if not hundreds of complaints per day. We don't view it as our job to adjust
>individual transactions. This is the responsibility of the Registrar. We do
>however monitor the situation; discern trends and then act on systemic
>problems.  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00133.html
>
>At issue is whether ICANN should in fact be acting to resolve issues that
>relate to the business practices of particular registrars, rather than only
>acting on issues of a systemic nature.
>
>The Committee on Evolution and Reform has asked:  What are the real problems?
>
>Certainly one real problem is the perception that ICANN has become a lackey
>to the interests of those registries and registrars that financially prop up
>its regime, and that it seeks to further ingratiate itself with this
>particular segment of the Internet community at the expense of the public
>interest.  Accordingly, any action taken by the Board to further enhance the
>influence of registrars and registries in the ICANN process will be viewed by
>the public as further proof of how corrupt the organization has become.
>
>This particular set of stakeholders already wields far too much influence
>within the ICANN organization, and any restructuring effort which seeks to
>grant them even greater status (such as has been proposed in the Lynn Plan)
>should roundly be rejected.

- --
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: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 12:03:46 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] wecann preparation - News people

We prepare the http://wecann.com site for next week. We plan a mailing list 
and archives for News people. So the Authors may keep the press/media 
updated easily. This list would be some permanent press conference on the 
ICANN reform matters.

Please send me a private mail with the mail of the press people you know 
and who could be interested. When the site and the list are established we 
will send them a mail asking if they want to be on this wecann-press list.
jfc

- --
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: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 07:20:39 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

Thursday, March 28, 2002, 8:28:01 AM, William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
WXW> Wednesday, Wednesday, March 27, 2002, 8:45:00 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

JL> These are the facts.

WXW> No, they really are just your own opinions.

WXW> You pretty much stood alone on this list on your insistence that the
WXW> bankruptcy clause was inappropriate.  And I think you stand alone
WXW> still today.

WXW> How dare you presume to speak for what is in the best interests of
WXW> registrants anyway.  You have no mandate, not even the most flimsy
WXW> claim of a mandate, to do so.

I don't see how it is appropriate, either.  If the Registrar has not
been paid the registration fee due, they can lock the domain name.
What am I missing?

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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 #1111
*************************