Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1115
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, April 4 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1115

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

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 09:04:48 -0600 
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Open Letter to Mr Jeff Neuman from The Internet Challenge

Richard and all,

I am in receipt of your e-mails and we are conducting our own investigation
into these matters.  We will respond to your e-mail when our investigation
is further down the road.  This internal investigation is a necessary step
before we can respond to the issues raised in your e-mails.  

Thanks again for your comments.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Director, Policy and Intellectual Property
NeuLevel, Inc. 
Loudoun Tech Center
46000 Center Oak Plaza
Building X
Sterling, VA 20166
p: (202) 533-2733
f: (202) 533-2970
e-mail: [email-masked]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Richard Henderson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 9:57 AM
To: vint cerf; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Karl Auerbach;
Jefsey Morfin; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Open Letter to Mr Jeff Neuman from The Internet Challenge

Dear Vint and Jeff

I just want to forward this message I have posted at the ICANN NewTLDs
Forum. It concerns Joshua Blacker, who was the registrant of all Signature's
domains in last week's .biz release. He says he is a partner of the company.

I'd really appreciate some response to this. Is it acceptable for a
registrar to register high value names only for itself? And then there is
the case of the other 5 Registrars who appear to have acted in a similar way
(though obviously each case needs investigation).

Regards

Richard

FORUM MESSAGE:

I just phoned Joshua at (001) 310-823-1252 and I'd forgotten the time
difference. Poor bloke, it was 6.30 in California and I'd woken him up.

I congratulated him on getting so many amazing domains, and explained that
people were wondering how he alone managed to get names through Signature
Domains.

Joshua then answered, "Well actually I am a silent partner of Signature
Domains. That's how I did it. I don't want to say anything. It's my partner
you need to speak to."

I said, "Who is your partner, is it Barry Fellman?"

He said, "You've found my telephone number, I expect you know his as well."

I felt sorry for him. It was so early. I checked again and said, "So you are
a silent partner of Signature Domains."

Joshua said, "Yes, I am a silent partner of Signature Domains, but it's my
partner you want to speak to."

I said "OK" and apologised for waking him up.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

I found Joshua's home number from a work-related Internet site.

www.rolls.com/map/ter1-2.html

This lists his home number if you scroll down the page to Blacker at the
address 609 Coeur d'Alene Ave (the address he gave on the WHOIS for all his
domains). Only the phone number on the WHOIS is different.

On a personal note, I'm not in the business of judging other individuals. He
was courteous and straight with me, as I was with him. It's the system I am
challenging : the system which ALLOWS Registrars to act in ways which seem
at odds with fairness and which seems to require no accountability.

I await Jeff Neuman's response from Neulevel.

What is the status of these domains obtained by Signature Domains?

And I await ICANN's response too.

Is it prepared to offer accreditation to Registrars if they are shown to act
against the interests of the Internet Public?

And will it PLEASE finally intervene BEFORE the same things happen all over
again in the .info Landrush 2?
- --
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, 3 Apr 2002 12:29:25 -0600 
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Open Letter to Mr Jeff Neuman from The Internet Challenge

Mr. Henderson,

Thanks again for your e-mail.  Let me assure you that Bondi, LLC is in fact
a separate ICANN-Accredited Registrar.  They are separate and apart (at
least as far as accreditation) from Parava Networks.  With respect to the
fact that they are not listed on our Web site, I can tell you that they were
indeed listed on our site as a Registar participating in the Group 2B
process (See http://www.neulevel.biz/faqs/distr_methods_faqs.html FAQ #1).
They are not yet on our general list, because they are still going through
technical certification for real-time registrations. They will be added to
our list once they pass such testing.  As to why they are not on the ICANN
Website, I can not answer that question.

Any ICANN-Accredited registrar that has signed a Registry-Registrar
Agreement for .BIZ, that also signed the Group 2B Amendment (for the
round-robin process) was permitted to submit a queue of applications for the
Group 2B domain names.  

Again, with respect to the other issues raised in your e-mail, our
investigation is ongoing.  

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Richard Henderson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 12:45 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; vint cerf; Legal-NeuLevel
Cc: Neuman, Jeff; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Karl Auerbach;
Jefsey Morfin; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Open Letter to Mr Jeff Neuman from The Internet Challenge

Dear Jeff and Vint

As an addendum to the issue of the SIX registrars who appear to have
submitted "exclusive" lists in the .biz release last week:

Further to the admission made by the sole registrant who gained names
through Signature domains, that he was in fact a partner of Signature
Domains, I have a query about Bondi LLC. Perhaps you could clarify this one,
Jeff?

This case of the 93 names registered for Marco Publishing Corporation
through Bondi LLC appears quite a strange affair.
If you look up the lists of accredited registrars at ICANN or Neulevel, you
will find NO MENTION of Bondi LLC as a registrar. They simply don't exist
there, so you would have had no means of applying for names through them.
I phoned Neulevel today and they explain that Bondi were accredited by
Neulevel "just before the names release". Neulevel says that their contact
number is : (001) 713-780-0202 and when you phone that number it is "Parava
Services" that answers.
I asked the person at the other end if BondiLLC had a parent company and
they said, yes, Parava.
This leaves me very confused. Not only has BondiLLC submitted a highly
exclusive list (great beneficiary: the unknown Marco Publishing
Corporation). It appears they are part of Parava.

Doesn't this mean, in effect, that Parava submitted TWO lists? One, a list
that was widely open to the public, and one which appeared to be closed to
the public and inaccessible?

Interestingly, although Marco Publishing benefitted from 93 names from
BondiLLc, they also applied for and gained names through Parava (for
example, lotto.biz).

I would be very interested to know HOW ordinary members of the Internet
Public were supposed to (a) know Bondi LLC existed (b) locate its website
(c) participate in their list.

I would also be very interested to know WHY Parava were effectively allowed
to submit two lists. Didn't that give them double the chances of other
Registrars?

And I would finally be interested to know why Neulevel didn't - and still
have not - placed BONDI LLC on their accredited registrars list. Also, are
they accredited by ICANN, as they don't appear on the ICANN list either?

In anonymity, this last-minute "front" company of an already existing
Registrar, appears to have submitted names for an exclusive customer.

Explanations would be appreciated.

I also believe that Bondi LLC may have been in breach of the ICANN terms,
which I presume Neulevel is obliged to enforce.

"ICANN-Accredited Registrars will be responsible for developing the
necessary interface with their customers."
(extract from ICANN's .biz TLD Agreement: Appendix J)

Was the necessary interface put in place between BONDI LLC and the internet
public? Was it made known and made accessible? Did Neulevel take steps to
notify the public of this "subcontracted" registrar of Parava on the
Neulevel website?

Did Parava effectively "double" its chances by introducing BONDI LLC?

Or am I being unfair (for example, does Verisign own a range of accredited
Registrars and therefore get various lists submitted) ?

Why did Parava need to operate a second registrar?
Why did it bother if it wasn't going to accept applications from the public?
Did this disadvantage other consumers or registrars?

I'd be grateful for your further investigation or elucidation.

Regards

Richard

Appendix A: List of the 93 names registered for Marco Publishing Corporation
through Bondi LLC

energy.biz
eradio.biz
etickets.biz
executivesearch.biz
fiberglass.biz
floodinsurance.biz
forlease.biz
franchises.biz
futbol.biz
giftcertificates.biz
gifts.biz
golfschool.biz
horseracing.biz
hotel.biz
houston.biz
ipo.biz
directions.biz
domain-names.biz
e-tickets.biz
egifts.biz
electricians.biz
casinogames.biz
cats.biz
cellularphones.biz
checks.biz
colleges.biz
computers.biz
contacts.biz
copyrights.biz
art.biz
autoparts.biz
baseballcards.biz
batteries.biz
biomed.biz
biotech.biz
biz2biz.biz
biz4sale.biz
blinds.biz
brakerepair.biz
brands.biz
brides.biz
broadway.biz
cable.biz
cablemodem.biz
4sale.biz
accountants.biz
addresses.biz
affiliateprograms.biz
credit-cards.biz
creditcards.biz
cruise.biz
defensivedriving.biz
desktops.biz
digitalcameras.biz
jokes.biz
junk.biz
laptop.biz
lawyers.biz
limo.biz
limos.biz
linux.biz
marco.biz
mobilehome.biz
onlinecasinos.biz
payperview.biz
pbs.biz
perfumes.biz
personaltrainer.biz
prescriptions.biz
quickquote.biz
rates.biz
refinance.biz
rentacar.biz
sail.biz
samples.biz
sexsites.biz
sexy.biz
skiing.biz
snowboards.biz
soccer.biz
spas.biz
speakersbureau.biz
sportsbets.biz
spy.biz
tickets.biz
trademarks.biz
universities.biz
usedtrucks.biz
washington.biz
watches.biz
windowcoverings.biz
wirelessphone.biz
work-at-home.biz

- --
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, 3 Apr 2002 11:16:21 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] RE: Open Letter to Mr Jeff Neuman from The Internet Challenge

Wednesday, Wednesday, April 03, 2002, 11:09:06 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:

> Mr Neuman and Vint Cerf

> Thanks for this clarification about Bondi LLC. I am pleased for this
> confirmation that they were indeed accredited and that you listed them with
> a link to their site. However, my concerns persist about the use they made
> of their Registrar privilege in possibly operating exclusively rather than
> on behalf of the public.

I'm not aware of any condition that requires a registrar to sell to
the public, only to have an interface for "their customers" whoever
those customers may be.

Can you point out where that requirement is documented?

- -- 
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: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 17:08:14 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Survey

Dear Marilyn,

You have posted a survey to the Transfers TF list, and you have indicated 
that "The survey was developed by a small group of TF members who worked 
together to generate a draft which is now presented to the full TF for input 
and suggestions."

As I review the survey, this document appears to me to be virtually identical 
to the survey that was solely developed by Ross Rader and which was 
previously posted (Feb. 21) to:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00144.html

Why don't you come clean, and admit that this is solely Ross's work-product 
that you modified only in the most minor of ways.   I have previously noted 
that you are under the instructions of the BC to advocate Ross's solution to 
the transfers problem... Can't you set aside your bias just briefly enough to 
allow others on the TF to participate?  You asked no one to assist in the 
preparation of this survey, and yet you present it as if it was a project 
given over to volunteers on your TF to handle...

Why not allow the other constituencies and the GA to get involved?  This 
should not become strictly the RC/BC roadshow.

- --
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: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:16:43 +1200 
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Internet Registries position

> 
> How much is half of these funds exactly? (Useful for 
> individuals to know how much buys the ICANN Board).
> Joanna

http://www.icann.org/financials/preliminary-budget-30mar02.htm

has the follow about this:

"Should no RIR funding be received, ICANN will not only need to reduce even
further the projected surplus for 2001-2002 by the $496,000 revenues
budgeted during that year from the RIRs, but will also need to write-off the
$856,000 in accounts receivable attributed to revenues from RIRs booked from
the past two financial years. The combined reduction of $1,352,000 would
obviously result in a significant loss, regardless of what the ccTLDs
contribute in 2001-2002."

So, that would be $425,000 for half of the outstanding amount from previous
years and almost $250,000 for this year (assuming that the RIR's will pay
half of this years as well).

The RIR's paying 50% of the their fees has a major cash flow impact for
ICANN.

Steven Heath
- --
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: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 02:16:46 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Internet Registries position

We all know that Stauart has his retirement. We don't. Would it not be time 
to close most of the shop, forget about Joe Sims number and try to survive 
on what is left on the account - if any is left. With probably a staf of five.

Surprisingly the ICANN might then become of interest to many....
jfc

On 00:16 04/04/02, Steven Heath said:

> >
> > How much is half of these funds exactly? (Useful for
> > individuals to know how much buys the ICANN Board).
> > Joanna
>
>http://www.icann.org/financials/preliminary-budget-30mar02.htm
>
>has the follow about this:
>
>"Should no RIR funding be received, ICANN will not only need to reduce even
>further the projected surplus for 2001-2002 by the $496,000 revenues
>budgeted during that year from the RIRs, but will also need to write-off the
>$856,000 in accounts receivable attributed to revenues from RIRs booked from
>the past two financial years. The combined reduction of $1,352,000 would
>obviously result in a significant loss, regardless of what the ccTLDs
>contribute in 2001-2002."
>
>So, that would be $425,000 for half of the outstanding amount from previous
>years and almost $250,000 for this year (assuming that the RIR's will pay
>half of this years as well).
>
>The RIR's paying 50% of the their fees has a major cash flow impact for
>ICANN.
>
>Steven Heath
>--
>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, 3 Apr 2002 20:05:42 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] UDRP-style solution proposed for transfers

From the registrars list:

This reminds me of an idea I had about transfers, which I never
shared nor develop. Maybe it is silly, but anyway here it is:

Why not do as for UDRPs, which is having an independant (hopes so)
organization handling cases ?

Basically this organization would make sure that the transfer is
authorized by the ``apparent authority''. It would be left to this
organization to see how to do that (emails, fax, phones, etc...)
This organization will just be able then to tell both Registrars if
everything is ok or not. Of course through automated ways (not
emails), like a live connection.

In the case brought, this organization could be smart enough to
contact users in their native language, or at least offer more than
just an English version.

In all cases, doing like that, even with many organizations (which
would have the same rules, as the arbitration centers have), will add
simplicity and homogeneity for transfers.

Regards,
Patrick Mevzek
Gandi.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02279.html
- -----

> interesting idea ...... my question - which organisation would do this?? and
> for what kind of remuneration (considering most registrars have attractive
> transfer packages making just a couple of cents)??

Two possibilities I see right now:
- - in the long term/in theory : chosing/acreditating organizations
should be ICANN role, as it is to choose organizations to handle UDRP
cases,
- - in the court term/in practice : what sounds reasonable is to try
ourselves to build things. I am not sure if contract-wise it would be
ok, but maybe Registrars together (the ones who whould like to make
transfers not a burden on their customer and improve the current
state) could decide, and then all abide by those rules (that is that
they will each and all remove their own verifications to take only
into account what the ``Transfer Verification Organization'' says).
That is, some Registrars (of course, all would be great, but previous
threads that all/consensus/majority are difficult terms here ;-)) could 
form a group, decide that transfers among members of this group will
be handled by a TVO (a neutral party to all of them), and
choose/create/build/whatever such a TVO.
It would be better to have from the beginning and from scratch a
totally independant organization. But this hard to achieve, time and
money consuming. Maybe it can start as a part of a given Registrar
willing to help. Of course, after agreement from all Registrars
participating. Some kind of rules (how the system should work, what
verification is done exactly) would need to be agreed upon all
Registrars participating.

For example, for transparency, at any time, any transfer among
registrar A and B should list of details (mails sent, mails
received, etc...) avaible through a website (protected area of
course), for both A and B.

The remuneration is of course a very valid/important point. No
bright idea right now. If we take the last point (group of Registrars
deciding to operate like that), each Registrar could participate in
funding. Either same amount for each, or proportionnal to the number
of transfert. Same amount would be simpler.

To run such an organization would not be too complicated/expensive.
After the system is designed (for example to use emails), an effort
has to be done to create it, that is true, but after that most of
things should be automated. Few humans would be needed for abuse
requests and such, but not too many of them I think.
I think that the burden on Registrars would not be too high. Since
the expense will not scale as the number of Registrars/transfers,
(at least certainly not linearly if the system is well built),
more Registrars using the system, means less to pay for each ;-)

Regards,
Patrick Mevzek
Gandi.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02281.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, 3 Apr 2002 21:20:57 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Survey

Danny, 

Let's set the facts out:  the small group is/was: 
Ross Rader,Registrar constituency;  Grant Forsyth, BC; Dan Steinberg,GA;  Rick Shera, ccTLD; and Mark McFadden, ISPCP, who worked on the survey. I invited them to undertake this project and participated ex officio, and then based on their draft, provided the typing of the FINAL version of the survey questions.   You seem to be accusing Ross of taking full credit for the work of the small working group. I'm sure he would never intentionally do that.    I asked Ross to act as team leader in the development process and he did so. I've heard no complaints from his colleagues in the drafting process.  

Assigning work and delegating is one of the functions of an elected chair. 

The step now before all of the TF is to help to "improve" the questionnaire. I note that the TF is taking input on the questionnaire. I suggest that you might want to work through Dan to provide constructive input. You have a wealth of experience that few have and your insights could help to ensure a good survey document.

On another front, let's not confuse the issues. When I was elected chair to the TF, I accepted the responsibility to be a chair, rather than an advocate. You may be critical of my style as a chair, or you may merely be critical.  

The BC position on the TF is represented by Grant Forsyth, who is an able representative of the BC perspective.

So, any concerns you have about who represents the  BC and their perspective can be best taken up with Grant. 

In the meantime, I consider it my task, as elected chair, to work to develop process; seek to hear all sides, from those in the TF who are engaged; from those who seem to be seeking to delay outcomes, and even to continue to cajole those who seem to be "missing in action" or too busy on some days, so that they make the time... that is the role of the chair.... and to create mechanisms to support the criteria of outreach, so that the TF can make a recommendation.

As you and I know... one can be part of the problem, or one can be part of the solution... isn't that always everyone's challenge? 

so, you've got a good part of your perspective about me and the questionnaire wrong. How about making a positive contribution through Dan and helping to fix any areas where you have  improvements in language? And then offer to help with outreach to users/registrants.

You have a unique set of background experiences.  Your perspective is undoubtedly somewhat unique. And would be useful to better understand and tap... to advise the TF's work. Please work through your GA representative. We welcome hearing about how to improve the survey.

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 5:08 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Subject: Survey

Dear Marilyn,

You have posted a survey to the Transfers TF list, and you have indicated 
that "The survey was developed by a small group of TF members who worked 
together to generate a draft which is now presented to the full TF for input 
and suggestions."

As I review the survey, this document appears to me to be virtually identical 
to the survey that was solely developed by Ross Rader and which was 
previously posted (Feb. 21) to:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00144.html

Why don't you come clean, and admit that this is solely Ross's work-product 
that you modified only in the most minor of ways.   I have previously noted 
that you are under the instructions of the BC to advocate Ross's solution to 
the transfers problem... Can't you set aside your bias just briefly enough to 
allow others on the TF to participate?  You asked no one to assist in the 
preparation of this survey, and yet you present it as if it was a project 
given over to volunteers on your TF to handle...

Why not allow the other constituencies and the GA to get involved?  This 
should not become strictly the RC/BC roadshow.

- --
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, 3 Apr 2002 22:00:35 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Survey

Dear Dan,

Marilyn Cade has suggested that I work through you to provide constructive 
input to the Transfers TF.  I would like to begin by asking why this survey 
is needed.  Surely the registrars can provide hundreds if not thousands of 
letters of complaint from affected registrants.  After months of discussion 
on this topic, what is served by generating a survey that will give us the 
same set of responses that registrars already have in the complaint files?  
What does this accomplish other than needlessly postponing the resolution of 
this issue?

If the purported goal is to seek to abide by the consensus process, the TF 
must first propose a recommended policy and only then reach out to impacted 
parties for their assessment of the implications of such a policy.  Outreach 
only to gather "anecdotal data" at this point is a waste of time and human 
resources.  The WHOIS committee has been analyzing their own particular data 
set for half a year already...  do we really need to go through a similar 
time-consuming exercise?
- --
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, 3 Apr 2002 22:24:19 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Survey

You can chose to make a contribution which helps to improve and broaden understanding of the TF, or you can choose to make noise. 

Your choice.

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 12:18 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Transfer TF; icann board address;
Don Evans; Nancy J. Victory; Karen Rose; kathy smith; Kay Bailey
Hutchison; Phil Gramm
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Survey

Marilyn and all assembly and TF members,

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Danny,
>
> Let's set the facts out:  the small group is/was:
> Ross Rader,Registrar constituency;  Grant Forsyth, BC; Dan Steinberg,GA;  Rick Shera, ccTLD; and Mark McFadden, ISPCP, who worked on the survey. I invited them to undertake this project and participated ex officio, and then based on their draft, provided the typing of the FINAL version of the survey questions.   You seem to be accusing Ross of taking full credit for the work of the small working group.

  No Danny was CLEARLY stating that YOU Marilyn were in effect taking
credit for work that YOU were not solely responsible.  Those ARE the
facts!  (See Danny's previous comments below along with URL Reference).

  Just perhaps Marilyn yet again you are suffering from some sort of
reading comprehension problem.

> I'm sure he would never intentionally do that.    I asked Ross to act as team leader in the development process and he did so. I've heard no complaints from his colleagues in the drafting process.
>
> Assigning work and delegating is one of the functions of an elected chair.

No a "Chair" is to facilitate primarily, not delegate.  It is clear now where
many of your perception problem come from Marilyn.  You have revealed
here that you leadership knowledge base is lacking...

>
>
> The step now before all of the TF is to help to "improve" the questionnaire.

  Why?  What need to be improved BEFORE the now questionnaire, of
some dubious origin, be presented to any and all of the stakeholders
in the DNSO?  Improvements can be made yes, but in follow on iterations.
What is seemingly much more important is getting directed and general
feedback.  Perhaps this *questionnaire* can in some ways can do that
now.  Follow on later if needed.

> I note that the TF is taking input on the questionnaire. I suggest that you might want to work through Dan to provide constructive input. You have a wealth of experience that few have and your insights could help to ensure a good survey document.

  Why would any DNSO participant/stakeholder need to go through anyone?
Why not do that directly to the task force Forum?  Or would that be too
open and transparent?  If so, than I can only say that sounds allot like
AT&T Customer support!  :(

>
>
> On another front, let's not confuse the issues. When I was elected chair to the TF, I accepted the responsibility to be a chair, rather than an advocate. You may be critical of my style as a chair, or you may merely be critical.

  Danny's comments below could only accurately be construed as constructive
criticism.  If you are feeling a bit put upon, perhaps, as it seems from
you comments above, that is because it is not your style, but your gross
inaccurate characterization (And I m being very kind here! ) of Danny's
comments/remarks.

>
>
> The BC position on the TF is represented by Grant Forsyth, who is an able representative of the BC perspective.
>
> So, any concerns you have about who represents the  BC and their perspective can be best taken up with Grant.
>
> In the meantime, I consider it my task, as elected chair, to work to develop process; seek to hear all sides, from those in the TF who are engaged; from those who seem to be seeking to delay outcomes, and even to continue to cajole those who seem to be "missing in action" or too busy on some days, so that they make the time... that is the role of the chair.... and to create mechanisms to support the criteria of outreach, so that the TF can make a recommendation.

  If you are really seeking ot hear all sides as you contend here Marilyn.  Than
the Transfer TF would be open to all, and therefor transparent.  It is not,
hence I can only say that you are failing terribly at your task as is this Task
force.

>
>
> As you and I know... one can be part of the problem, or one can be part of the solution... isn't that always everyone's challenge?

  Indeed true.  And you are looking in this instance as in others in the
not to distant past, part of the problem.

>
>
> so, you've got a good part of your perspective about me and the questionnaire wrong. How about making a positive contribution through Dan and helping to fix any areas where you have  improvements in language? And then offer to help with outreach to users/registrants.

  Again why does any DNSO GA member of member of any constituency
need to go through anyone if as the MoU and White paper require open
and transparent participating by any and all interested parties?

>
>
> You have a unique set of background experiences.  Your perspective is undoubtedly somewhat unique. And would be useful to better understand and tap... to advise the TF's work. Please work through your GA representative. We welcome hearing about how to improve the survey.

  First suggestion from me.  Develop the follow on Survey later.  Run with this
one of dubious origin now, and in the future, do any development of survey's
in a completely open and transparent ML forum...

>
>
> Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 5:08 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Subject: Survey
>
> Dear Marilyn,
>
> You have posted a survey to the Transfers TF list, and you have indicated
> that "The survey was developed by a small group of TF members who worked
> together to generate a draft which is now presented to the full TF for input
> and suggestions."
>
> As I review the survey, this document appears to me to be virtually identical
> to the survey that was solely developed by Ross Rader and which was
> previously posted (Feb. 21) to:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00144.html
>
> Why don't you come clean, and admit that this is solely Ross's work-product
> that you modified only in the most minor of ways.   I have previously noted
> that you are under the instructions of the BC to advocate Ross's solution to
> the transfers problem... Can't you set aside your bias just briefly enough to
> allow others on the TF to participate?  You asked no one to assist in the
> preparation of this survey, and yet you present it as if it was a project
> given over to volunteers on your TF to handle...
>
> Why not allow the other constituencies and the GA to get involved?  This
> should not become strictly the RC/BC roadshow.
>
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
- --
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: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 22:35:47 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Survey

Jeff, Danny, et al

The survey is in draft form; the process is to allow for your input, NOW, on the DRAFT questions. THEN it will be finalized, and THEN distributed.  Please read the posting again with that in mind. And forgive my lack of clarity.

My apologies.

Please note that the TF members including the GA are asked to discuss/develop distribution. That will include asking for ideas.  I think that addresses your questions.

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 7:56 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; dnso Tran TF list
Subject: Re: [ga] Survey

Danny and all assembly members,

  What I also do not understand is why this Survey has not been officially
of the GA members as well as propagated thru other channels for stakeholders
to participate in?  Is this a closed loop Survey?  Marilyn?

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Marilyn,
>
> You have posted a survey to the Transfers TF list, and you have indicated
> that "The survey was developed by a small group of TF members who worked
> together to generate a draft which is now presented to the full TF for input
> and suggestions."
>
> As I review the survey, this document appears to me to be virtually identical
> to the survey that was solely developed by Ross Rader and which was
> previously posted (Feb. 21) to:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00144.html
>
> Why don't you come clean, and admit that this is solely Ross's work-product
> that you modified only in the most minor of ways.   I have previously noted
> that you are under the instructions of the BC to advocate Ross's solution to
> the transfers problem... Can't you set aside your bias just briefly enough to
> allow others on the TF to participate?  You asked no one to assist in the
> preparation of this survey, and yet you present it as if it was a project
> given over to volunteers on your TF to handle...
>
> Why not allow the other constituencies and the GA to get involved?  This
> should not become strictly the RC/BC roadshow.
>
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
- --
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: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 23:12:31 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] RE: Open Letter to Mr Jeff Neuman from The Internet Challenge

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of William X
Walsh
I'm not aware of any condition that requires a registrar to sell to
the public, only to have an interface for "their customers" whoever
those customers may be.

Can you point out where that requirement is documented?

- - Conversely, can you point out the DoC document that permitted ICANN to
remove the requirement to coordinate the DNS for the public benefit?

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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 #1115
*************************