Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1116
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, April 5 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1116

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

Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 02:21:53 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Survey

Jeff - it strikes me that some of this need be worked out face to face - I'm
actually in the Grapevine area now (thanks for the weather ;) - can we get
together?

tia,

- -rwr

- --
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 02:59:11 -0500
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Open Letter to Mr Jeff Neuman from The Internet Challenge

Richard,

this sounds like "self-dealing" is that what you mean?

vint

At 03:56 PM 4/3/2002 +0100, Richard Henderson wrote:
>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

- --
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 11:06:24 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Survey

Dear Marilyn,
this kind of input is very appreciated. You actually do what you propose 
Danny to do.  My feeling is you were doing it in the past but not for a 
while. So welcome back in the dialog area: I hope you are here to stay (I 
only presume that you were woried by the BC position against Open Nets).

ICP-3 had all your priorities as the representative of an e-commerce small 
consulting firm :-). Now you tricked the BC in including a paragraph on 
Open Nets killing a good work, you probably feel better. This only tells us 
that the ATT aircraft carrier takes a long long time to come into the wind. 
The fleet has to keep that in mind.

Now, on pratical terms, as the OTC of the ATT Task Force dont you think 
that there is a contradiction in telling Mines Sweeper Danny how its inputs 
are good genuine and welcome and to force them through some hierachical 
channel of your destroyers screen. From many simulations at sea, I know 
this is the best way to get a carrier sunk by a floating forgotten mine or 
a carefully watched yet not treated sub.

Don't you think it would be best to forget about Task Force screens and 
umbrellas and to come back to Working Groups, so Danny would directly share 
in the writing.
jfc

On 04:20 04/04/02, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:

>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

- --
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 21:11:18 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Open Letter to Mr Jeff Neuman from The Internet Challenge

On 02:59 4/04/02 -0500, vint cerf said:
>Richard,
>
>this sounds like "self-dealing" is that what you mean?

"Graft" would be another word for such a phenomenon, occurring typically 
when accountability is lacking.

- --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: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 07:10:10 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Survey

Danny,

I have to thank Marilyn for taking such a conciliatory tone your your
inflammatory post. Had it been me, rest assured my words would have been
slightly sharper. But as a member of the drafting team, I have to
personally ask that you retract the accusation that: 

"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"

As the GA rep on the Transfer TF it is my responsibility to listen to
(and reflect) the will of the GA. Om my better days I can problably find
time to reflect strong minority opinions as well.  If there are
constructive suggestions on how to improve the questionnaire...I'm here
on the GA list to hear them.

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 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
- --
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 09:20:34 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] BC Transparency?

Dear Jefsey,

In your comment to Marilyn you wrote:  "Now you tricked the BC in including a 
paragraph on Open Nets killing a good work, you probably feel better."

As the BC is a constituency that has chosen not to respect the ICANN 
requirements of transparency and continues to operate on a non-archived 
mailing list, we can only guess at the meaning of your words... 

Are you implying that the Proposed BC position paper on evaluation of new 
top-level domains (that included yet another attack on alternate roots) did 
not follow proper process?  As I recall, each such document if strongly 
opposed by a number of BC members is to be first discussed in a constituency 
conference call... and I am sure that you, Andy and Debbie strongly opposed 
the language that was included.  Are you implying that a conference call was 
not held, and that minority opinions were disregarded?  

I see no reference to a minority position in the BC position paper.  For the 
sake of transparency, perhaps you can tell us why a subject matter that was 
formerly "beyond the scope of ICANN" (in the words of the NC) is now proposed 
as an additional area of investigation for the TLD evaluation TF.

I apologize for putting the burden on you, but if BC officers actually cared 
about transparency they would have archived their mailing list a long time 
ago.
- --
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 17:36:07 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Policy development / improving Task Forces.

Let's, for a moment, assume that ICANN goes for a bottom-up policy 
development process, where the policy actually binds the board.  How 
should work be organized?  The two obvious options we have are 
(rather closed) task forces and (rather open) working groups.

For a while, I've been toying around with some ideas on how to 
improve task forces - for, actually, I believe that it is reasonable 
to do the "hard work" in a small group where most interest groups 
are represented.  One such idea which I have (in part) also been 
proposing on today's names council call goes like this:

 - Composition of task force (this was not in the call): Limited; 
   members from those constituencies/interest groups concerned.  This 
   should always not be limited to the members of a certain SO 
   (assuming that there will be SOs), but there should be a flexible 
   way for other groups to participate if needed.  Example: The GAC 
   should probably participate in policy development on issues they 
   have introduced into the discussion, such as country names in 
   .info.  With other topics, consumer advocates, experts, etc., 
   should be included.

 - Most work should happen on a publicly archived mailing list, plus 
   telephone conferences. Minutes of such conferences should be 
   posted to the public list.
 
 - There should be professional staff on the task force, which should 
   be independent of any special interest groups involved. This staff 
   should AT LEAST be responsible for producing a final report.  I'd 
   actually suggest that such staff should CHAIR the task force 
   (working group, whatever).

 - Deadlines.  There should be tight deadlines, and these should be 
   respected.  Nobody should be able to win by procrastinating.  In 
   the worst case, some groups' input may have to be ignored.

 - Such policy development must be balanced with appropriate 
   independent review.  Topics of review should, in particular, be 
   the quality of outreach

 - The review panel (or however it's called) should have the power to 
   add parties (constituencies, ...) to the process for the future.

In such a process, a GA (or at large membership, or whatever) would 
serve as for the representation of interested individuals, and also 
send representatives.

I'm not sure who should initiate or manage such a process: This 
could either be the board (one may hope that they don't ignore their 
own task forces), or it could be some kind of SO council.  It 
should, however, be noted that a names council or equivalent would 
not necessarily be needed for this process to work.

Comments?

(Please try, as far as you can, to limit discussion of constituency 
individual groups, board composition, and the like, in this thread. 
I'll try to address this in a different context.)

- -- 
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: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:45:53 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Policy development / improving Task Forces.

I think the difficulty of doing this right is one of the most powerful
arguments for decentralization and parallel processing.  ICANN's sole job
would be to prevent inconsistent outcomes (e.g. two groups authorizing the
same TLD).

On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> Let's, for a moment, assume that ICANN goes for a bottom-up policy 
> development process, where the policy actually binds the board.  How 
> should work be organized?  The two obvious options we have are 
> (rather closed) task forces and (rather open) working groups.
> 
> For a while, I've been toying around with some ideas on how to 
> improve task forces - for, actually, I believe that it is reasonable 
> to do the "hard work" in a small group where most interest groups 
> are represented.  One such idea which I have (in part) also been 
> proposing on today's names council call goes like this:
> 
>  - Composition of task force (this was not in the call): Limited; 
>    members from those constituencies/interest groups concerned.  This 
>    should always not be limited to the members of a certain SO 
>    (assuming that there will be SOs), but there should be a flexible 
>    way for other groups to participate if needed.  Example: The GAC 
>    should probably participate in policy development on issues they 
>    have introduced into the discussion, such as country names in 
>    .info.  With other topics, consumer advocates, experts, etc., 
>    should be included.
> 
>  - Most work should happen on a publicly archived mailing list, plus 
>    telephone conferences. Minutes of such conferences should be 
>    posted to the public list.
>  
>  - There should be professional staff on the task force, which should 
>    be independent of any special interest groups involved. This staff 
>    should AT LEAST be responsible for producing a final report.  I'd 
>    actually suggest that such staff should CHAIR the task force 
>    (working group, whatever).
> 
>  - Deadlines.  There should be tight deadlines, and these should be 
>    respected.  Nobody should be able to win by procrastinating.  In 
>    the worst case, some groups' input may have to be ignored.
> 
>  - Such policy development must be balanced with appropriate 
>    independent review.  Topics of review should, in particular, be 
>    the quality of outreach
> 
>  - The review panel (or however it's called) should have the power to 
>    add parties (constituencies, ...) to the process for the future.
> 
> In such a process, a GA (or at large membership, or whatever) would 
> serve as for the representation of interested individuals, and also 
> send representatives.
> 
> I'm not sure who should initiate or manage such a process: This 
> could either be the board (one may hope that they don't ignore their 
> own task forces), or it could be some kind of SO council.  It 
> should, however, be noted that a names council or equivalent would 
> not necessarily be needed for this process to work.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> (Please try, as far as you can, to limit discussion of constituency 
> individual groups, board composition, and the like, in this thread. 
> I'll try to address this in a different context.)
> 
> 

- -- 
		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: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:58:28 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Policy development / improving Task Forces.

That is, you are advocating the "policy market" approach also 
suggested by David Johnson in his earlier posting.  

Still, there may be a desire for uniform policy development - either 
because it's plain necessary (think "minimum requirements"), or 
because it's economically desirable for some key players involved 
(think "UDRP").  In both cases, you need a reasonable process.

So, once again - what do you folks think about the process 
suggested, when applied within these limits?

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

On 2002-04-04 10:45:53 -0500, Michael Froomkin wrote:
>Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:45:53 -0500 (EST)
>From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
>To: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] Policy development / improving Task Forces.
>
>I think the difficulty of doing this right is one of the most powerful
>arguments for decentralization and parallel processing.  ICANN's sole job
>would be to prevent inconsistent outcomes (e.g. two groups authorizing the
>same TLD).
>
>On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
>> Let's, for a moment, assume that ICANN goes for a bottom-up policy 
>> development process, where the policy actually binds the board.  How 
>> should work be organized?  The two obvious options we have are 
>> (rather closed) task forces and (rather open) working groups.
>> 
>> For a while, I've been toying around with some ideas on how to 
>> improve task forces - for, actually, I believe that it is reasonable 
>> to do the "hard work" in a small group where most interest groups 
>> are represented.  One such idea which I have (in part) also been 
>> proposing on today's names council call goes like this:
>> 
>>  - Composition of task force (this was not in the call): Limited; 
>>    members from those constituencies/interest groups concerned.  This 
>>    should always not be limited to the members of a certain SO 
>>    (assuming that there will be SOs), but there should be a flexible 
>>    way for other groups to participate if needed.  Example: The GAC 
>>    should probably participate in policy development on issues they 
>>    have introduced into the discussion, such as country names in 
>>    .info.  With other topics, consumer advocates, experts, etc., 
>>    should be included.
>> 
>>  - Most work should happen on a publicly archived mailing list, plus 
>>    telephone conferences. Minutes of such conferences should be 
>>    posted to the public list.
>>  
>>  - There should be professional staff on the task force, which should 
>>    be independent of any special interest groups involved. This staff 
>>    should AT LEAST be responsible for producing a final report.  I'd 
>>    actually suggest that such staff should CHAIR the task force 
>>    (working group, whatever).
>> 
>>  - Deadlines.  There should be tight deadlines, and these should be 
>>    respected.  Nobody should be able to win by procrastinating.  In 
>>    the worst case, some groups' input may have to be ignored.
>> 
>>  - Such policy development must be balanced with appropriate 
>>    independent review.  Topics of review should, in particular, be 
>>    the quality of outreach
>> 
>>  - The review panel (or however it's called) should have the power to 
>>    add parties (constituencies, ...) to the process for the future.
>> 
>> In such a process, a GA (or at large membership, or whatever) would 
>> serve as for the representation of interested individuals, and also 
>> send representatives.
>> 
>> I'm not sure who should initiate or manage such a process: This 
>> could either be the board (one may hope that they don't ignore their 
>> own task forces), or it could be some kind of SO council.  It 
>> should, however, be noted that a names council or equivalent would 
>> not necessarily be needed for this process to work.
>> 
>> Comments?
>> 
>> (Please try, as far as you can, to limit discussion of constituency 
>> individual groups, board composition, and the like, in this thread. 
>> I'll try to address this in a different context.)
>> 
>> 
>
>-- 
>		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: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:10:38 -0500
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Policy development / improving Task Forces.

WRT the Task Forces.    At one point we were told that only the members from
the NCC serving on the Names Council could serve on these, and that was a
bad policy.  If the TF is an important policy making process, they have to
be more open, to tap the best people, etc.   One good rule would be to
require each DNSO constituency to tell its own members of vacancies, and to
permit some discussion regarding who will represent the constituency
formally in the TF.  The NCC has recently agreed to do this.  There might
also be some better attention to conflict of interest disclosures.    I like
most of Thomas Roessler's suggestions regarding transparency, deadlines,
etc.
Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 10:36 AM
Subject: [ga] Policy development / improving Task Forces.

> Let's, for a moment, assume that ICANN goes for a bottom-up policy
> development process, where the policy actually binds the board.  How
> should work be organized?  The two obvious options we have are
> (rather closed) task forces and (rather open) working groups.
>
> For a while, I've been toying around with some ideas on how to
> improve task forces - for, actually, I believe that it is reasonable
> to do the "hard work" in a small group where most interest groups
> are represented.  One such idea which I have (in part) also been
> proposing on today's names council call goes like this:
>
>  - Composition of task force (this was not in the call): Limited;
>    members from those constituencies/interest groups concerned.  This
>    should always not be limited to the members of a certain SO
>    (assuming that there will be SOs), but there should be a flexible
>    way for other groups to participate if needed.  Example: The GAC
>    should probably participate in policy development on issues they
>    have introduced into the discussion, such as country names in
>    .info.  With other topics, consumer advocates, experts, etc.,
>    should be included.
>
>  - Most work should happen on a publicly archived mailing list, plus
>    telephone conferences. Minutes of such conferences should be
>    posted to the public list.
>
>  - There should be professional staff on the task force, which should
>    be independent of any special interest groups involved. This staff
>    should AT LEAST be responsible for producing a final report.  I'd
>    actually suggest that such staff should CHAIR the task force
>    (working group, whatever).
>
>  - Deadlines.  There should be tight deadlines, and these should be
>    respected.  Nobody should be able to win by procrastinating.  In
>    the worst case, some groups' input may have to be ignored.
>
>  - Such policy development must be balanced with appropriate
>    independent review.  Topics of review should, in particular, be
>    the quality of outreach
>
>  - The review panel (or however it's called) should have the power to
>    add parties (constituencies, ...) to the process for the future.
>
> In such a process, a GA (or at large membership, or whatever) would
> serve as for the representation of interested individuals, and also
> send representatives.
>
> I'm not sure who should initiate or manage such a process: This
> could either be the board (one may hope that they don't ignore their
> own task forces), or it could be some kind of SO council.  It
> should, however, be noted that a names council or equivalent would
> not necessarily be needed for this process to work.
>
> Comments?
>
> (Please try, as far as you can, to limit discussion of constituency
> individual groups, board composition, and the like, in this thread.
> I'll try to address this in a different context.)
>
> --
> 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
>
>

- --
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 11:13:02 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Policy development / improving Task Forces.

I do not think that the economic desires of some players should be allowed
to (1) morph a technical process into an economic regulatory one and/or
(2) use a technical chokepoint to achieve ends they cannot achive through
ordinary political processes.

I also think that there probably is NO reasonable process at this level of
generality and disconnect from the parties affected by the rules
generated.  So I do not think this is the proper way to set up the
problem.

The David Johnson posting to which you refer does not seem to have hit my
inbox, perhaps a casualty of the recent tinkering with my filters (I have
been innundated with spam recently and have been resorting to various
homebrew countermeasures).  Perhaps you could privately forward me a copy
please?

On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> That is, you are advocating the "policy market" approach also 
> suggested by David Johnson in his earlier posting.  
> 
> Still, there may be a desire for uniform policy development - either 
> because it's plain necessary (think "minimum requirements"), or 
> because it's economically desirable for some key players involved 
> (think "UDRP").  In both cases, you need a reasonable process.
> 
> So, once again - what do you folks think about the process 
> suggested, when applied within these limits?
> 
> 

- -- 
		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: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:58:43 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Policy development / eliminating Task Forces

The TF concept is an abomination and an insult to the General Assembly... It 
only serves to deny us our right to participate in an open working group 
environment.  F**K the TF.
- --
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 12:18:01 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Survey

Dan Steinberg has asked that I retract the accusation that: 

"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 stand by my comments, and have produced a side-by-side comparison between 
the survey questions created by Ross and the survey questions produced by the 
"small group of TF members" posted at http://www.icannworld.org/survey.htm

Let the GA decide if anything more than minor modifications are present.
- --
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 20:06:59 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Policy development / eliminating Task Forces

On 2002-04-04 11:58:43 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:

>The TF concept is an abomination and an insult to the General 
>Assembly... It only serves to deny us our right to participate in 
>an open working group environment.  F**K the TF.

And do what instead?  A workable solution, please.

- -- 
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: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 13:28:23 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Policy development / eliminating Task Forces

Thomas writes:

<< And do what instead?  A workable solution, please. >>

Use Open Working Groups only.  They will operate on the basis of the 
recommendations tendered by Working Group D:  
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Arc02/msg00000.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: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:36:15 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf mp3 recording 4 April 2002

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

The MP3 recording of the Names Council teleconference is now available at:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020404.NCteleconf.mp3

Happy listening!

DNSO Secretariat

- --
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 11:53:25 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Policy development / eliminating Task Forces

Thursday, Thursday, April 04, 2002, 8:58:43 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> The TF concept is an abomination and an insult to the General Assembly... It 
> only serves to deny us our right to participate in an open working group 
> environment.  F**K the TF.

How very constructive, Danny boy.

- -- 
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, 5 Apr 2002 07:17:52 +0900
From: "YJ Park" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Policy development / improving Task Forces.

Jamie,

I want to clarify what you were told and what has been under way in the 
NCC as previous NC member of NCDNHC. 

It used to be limited to NC members when TF was firstly implemented 
after Yokohama meeting within NC, July 2000. Then NC passed a 
resolution that non-NC can be on the TF members not TF chair in 2001.  
 
Following such resolution, 2001 AdCom members of NCDNHC decided 
that TF representatives are to be elected by AdCom members after open
nomination process to members and notified as such in order to balance 
timely representation to the TFs and transparency, openness, fairness.

As witnessed, even AdCom election took more than one month, almost
two months therefore, 2002 AdCom members has continued its practice 
admitting difficulty to manage too many elections within the constituency. 

Today there was Whois TF call. Sarah Andrews was invited to the TF 
meeting as an observer from NCDNHC for the TF meeting. As a sole 
nominee for Whois TF from NCDNHC as of today, TF chair agreed to
do so even though NCDNHC didn't finish its election process yet.

YJ

> WRT the Task Forces.    At one point we were told that only the members from
> the NCC serving on the Names Council could serve on these, and that was a
> bad policy.  If the TF is an important policy making process, they have to
> be more open, to tap the best people, etc.   One good rule would be to
> require each DNSO constituency to tell its own members of vacancies, and to
> permit some discussion regarding who will represent the constituency
> formally in the TF.  The NCC has recently agreed to do this.  There might
> also be some better attention to conflict of interest disclosures.    I like
> most of Thomas Roessler's suggestions regarding transparency, deadlines,
> etc.
> Jamie
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 10:36 AM
> Subject: [ga] Policy development / improving Task Forces.
> 
> 
> > Let's, for a moment, assume that ICANN goes for a bottom-up policy
> > development process, where the policy actually binds the board.  How
> > should work be organized?  The two obvious options we have are
> > (rather closed) task forces and (rather open) working groups.
> >
> > For a while, I've been toying around with some ideas on how to
> > improve task forces - for, actually, I believe that it is reasonable
> > to do the "hard work" in a small group where most interest groups
> > are represented.  One such idea which I have (in part) also been
> > proposing on today's names council call goes like this:
> >
> >  - Composition of task force (this was not in the call): Limited;
> >    members from those constituencies/interest groups concerned.  This
> >    should always not be limited to the members of a certain SO
> >    (assuming that there will be SOs), but there should be a flexible
> >    way for other groups to participate if needed.  Example: The GAC
> >    should probably participate in policy development on issues they
> >    have introduced into the discussion, such as country names in
> >    .info.  With other topics, consumer advocates, experts, etc.,
> >    should be included.
> >
> >  - Most work should happen on a publicly archived mailing list, plus
> >    telephone conferences. Minutes of such conferences should be
> >    posted to the public list.
> >
> >  - There should be professional staff on the task force, which should
> >    be independent of any special interest groups involved. This staff
> >    should AT LEAST be responsible for producing a final report.  I'd
> >    actually suggest that such staff should CHAIR the task force
> >    (working group, whatever).
> >
> >  - Deadlines.  There should be tight deadlines, and these should be
> >    respected.  Nobody should be able to win by procrastinating.  In
> >    the worst case, some groups' input may have to be ignored.
> >
> >  - Such policy development must be balanced with appropriate
> >    independent review.  Topics of review should, in particular, be
> >    the quality of outreach
> >
> >  - The review panel (or however it's called) should have the power to
> >    add parties (constituencies, ...) to the process for the future.
> >
> > In such a process, a GA (or at large membership, or whatever) would
> > serve as for the representation of interested individuals, and also
> > send representatives.
> >
> > I'm not sure who should initiate or manage such a process: This
> > could either be the board (one may hope that they don't ignore their
> > own task forces), or it could be some kind of SO council.  It
> > should, however, be noted that a names council or equivalent would
> > not necessarily be needed for this process to work.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > (Please try, as far as you can, to limit discussion of constituency
> > individual groups, board composition, and the like, in this thread.
> > I'll try to address this in a different context.)
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
> 
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1116
*************************