Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1117
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, April 5 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1117

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

Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 22:56:41 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Policy development / improving Task Forces.

Dear Michael and Thomas,
Thomas carried a very good review. Michael point is good too. Now let just 
consider we are no more in the restrained universe of the ICANN and of the 
small private Internet system (the network has grown,  yet the initial 
culture is still here: we talk about a billion of users and Jon Postel is 
still the reference).

Let consider we are on the world Open Network and that competition applies 
to technologies, to lawyers, to working methods. Then *everyhing* made 
possible by the source code will tried and will develop if there is a need, 
a response, a market, some fun.

There is no more such words as "regulatory" and "technical" limitation. 
There is only consensus or war. What Thomas describes is a system to avoid 
war on a daily basis. Such systems are to be mechanically supported to work 
(his point about the Staff person to chair is good. This is Gov, UN 
"mechanics"). But they call for time, staff; money etc.

The innovation of our time is to replace staff by computers. This is true 
here too. This is why I made "let become Estonian" the main slogan of my 
BoD campaign. This means to adopt a systeme where the gouvenement working 
structure, archiving, reporting, consensus building etc.. is transparent 
because assisted by a computer everyone can access.

This goes the way Thomas wants. It addresses Michaels concerns.

Is that a dream? I believed it until I saw the incredible Estonian success 
story. Cabinet Minister meetings on the Net with citizen participating on 
line in real time.

Now, would the ICANN adopt a similar thinking and develop a tool along 
those lines (i.e. we specify, test and validate as a common working tool), 
this would certainly be adopted by the whole Internet community and the 
world with feeds back of incredible quality.

I copy Esther Dyson because all what we need is a VC able to understand the 
Estonian model and to match it to the US, European, Eastern cultures and 
able to organize the software development. Her @large effort could serve as 
a test community. Joop would be excited: far more interesting that his 
forum - yet along the same type of concern.

We need that.   We have the competence to specify it. We represent a real 
market. To interconnect our working habits and decision preparation 
processes is a far more exciting things for a gouvernance group than WLS 
:-). Will Esther pick the challenge and fund it? I have the need and a 
serious way to buy thousands of them if at a realistic price (let say less 
than 10$ per year / user). I am sure we all have some needs too.

jfc

At 18:13 04/04/02, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>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

- --
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 18:41:20 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Survey

Danny - feel free to stand by them, but you incorrect in this case. Not
having bothered to check the link that you presented as proof of some
conspiracy, I can't talk on an informed basis concerning which draft of the
survey that you are talking about - however, this document has undergone
many revisions - all based on input and criticism put forth by the drafting
team.

At this point, I can't remember who was even responsible for putting forward
the first draft (I can look it up when I get back to the office if its
important) - but I do distinctly remember a number of conversations, dozens
of emails and a conference call or two between thedrafting team members
through the preparation of this draft.

The important task now is for the TF to read through this draft, tear it
apart (or not) and get it into the hands of users that aren't
directly/officially represented in ICANN.

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 12:18 PM
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
>

- --
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 18:50:50 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Survey

416.828.8783 - I'm staying at the Fairmont in the West end (Ackard and
Ross) - I do have a car however and would be more than happy to make the
trip up to your end.

- -rwr

<cc snipped - the world beyond the GA probably doesn't care much about my
dinner planning w/Jeff...>

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; "Transfer TF" <[email-masked]>; "icann board address"
<[email-masked]>; "Don Evans" <[email-masked]>; "Nancy J. Victory"
<[email-masked]>; "Karen Rose" <[email-masked]>; "kathy smith"
<[email-masked]>; "Kay Bailey Hutchison"
<[email-masked]>; "Phil Gramm" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Survey

> Ross,
>
>   Sure.  Where are you staying?  Is there a contact number where you can
be
> reached.
> Please advise.  You can contact me by phone at 214-244-4827
>
> Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 18:16:01 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Survey

At 6:50 PM -0500 4/4/02, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>416.828.8783 - I'm staying at the Fairmont in the West end (Ackard and
>Ross) - I do have a car however and would be more than happy to make the
>trip up to your end.

Please say Hi! to Jeff's Mom for me when you visit his house.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
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 18:26:24 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Public Statement to the Boards of Afilias, Neulevel, ICANN and the Subcommittee for Telecommunications and the Internet

Again, Richard, can you please direct me to where you see a
requirement that Registrars have a public service available?

I can find no such requirement, but I may be missing something.

I, for one, would have a problem with such a requirement, as I
can see a justification for someone to become a registrar to provide
domain registration services to a select group of clients, and have no
interest in dealing with the general public.  And I do not see any
harm from that, since the public has numerous other registrars which
they can choose to do business with.

I do not believe such a requirement exists, nor do I believe it should
exist, so I am trying to understand the nature of your complaint and
what exactly you are seeking as a solution.

- -- 
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: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 23:57:34 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Public Statement to the Boards of Afilias, Neulevel, ICANN and the Subcommittee for Telecommunications and the Internet

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of William X
Walsh

I, for one, would have a problem with such a requirement, as I
can see a justification for someone to become a registrar to provide
domain registration services to a select group of clients, and have no
interest in dealing with the general public.  And I do not see any
harm from that, since the public has numerous other registrars which
they can choose to do business with.

- - How is the round robin method of allocating names fair when half the
Registrars represent only six people?

(cc. list deleted)

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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 23:58:32 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  Survey

Ross,
Where is the question about the bankruptcy clause?
Regards,
Joanna

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ross Wm.
Rader
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 6:41 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Survey

Danny - feel free to stand by them, but you incorrect in this case. Not
having bothered to check the link that you presented as proof of some
conspiracy, I can't talk on an informed basis concerning which draft of the
survey that you are talking about - however, this document has undergone
many revisions - all based on input and criticism put forth by the drafting
team.

At this point, I can't remember who was even responsible for putting forward
the first draft (I can look it up when I get back to the office if its
important) - but I do distinctly remember a number of conversations, dozens
of emails and a conference call or two between thedrafting team members
through the preparation of this draft.

The important task now is for the TF to read through this draft, tear it
apart (or not) and get it into the hands of users that aren't
directly/officially represented in ICANN.

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 12:18 PM
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
>

- --
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 21:35:22 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Public Statement to the Boards of Afilias, Neulevel, ICANN and the Subcommittee for Telecommunications and the Internet

Thursday, Thursday, April 04, 2002, 8:57:34 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> - How is the round robin method of allocating names fair when half the
> Registrars represent only six people?

Half the registrars, Joanna?

Is exaggeration your normal means of discussing things?

- -- 
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 00:52:07 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Policy development / improving Task Forces.

I can only reply for WHOIS TF and Transfer TF.

In WHOIS TF, co chaired by Antonio Harris and Marilyn Cade, there are up to three reps for each constituency and the GA, working together. An initial set of one per Constituency/GA was appointed; and the TF asked for flexibility and recruited/decision by each group /addition of two more, IF wanted by the group. A couple of constituencies chose to have one or two instead of three. Their choice. They determine whether to add elected NC rep or member of constituency/GA. their choice. Mix of both versions exists.

Transfer TF: established with one designated by constituency. Expanded to add one more, per constiutency/Ga if determined by group. Some added a second, some didn't. Their choice. They decide whether to have NC member or recruit other member. Mix of both exists.

- -----Original Message-----
From: James Love [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 11:11 AM
To: Thomas Roessler; [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

- --
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 12:53:45 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Policy development / improving Task Forces.

On 2002-04-04 17:36:06 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> - 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.

Maybe I should have phrased this in a clearer way in the first 
place.  I am certainly not thinking about having council members (as 
far as councils continue to exist ;-) be the only ones who 
can/should do the work.  In fact, this would imply a huge work 
burden on council members, which may not be bearable, and may not 
lead to optimal results.

The things I like about task forces are these:

 - The number of participants in discussions is limited.  In 
   particular during conference calls, more participants mostly mean 
   more noise and more time wasted; to a lesser extent, the same is 
   true on mailing lists.  (On the other hand, it's less effort to be 
   a nuisance on a mailing list than on a conference call.)

 - You get people onto the group who make a commitment to actually do 
   the work, and who will have to take the blame if the work fails. 
   This motivates.  Of course, this does not prevent free riding 
   entirely, but it certainly helps to reduce it.

I hope this clarifies things a bit.

Have a nice week-end,
- -- 
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: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 13:49:39 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Public Statement to the Boards of Afilias, Neulevel, ICANN and the Subcommittee for Telecommunications and the Internet

I do support WXW here 100%.

I personnally manage more DNs (2500) than many small Registrars. It would 
make quite a lot of sense for me to become a Registrar would I find someone 
able to run that kind of show in French as well as in English. I would have 
probably a lot of developments from that, but still privately as what 
I  propose are turnkey sites on lease. Being a Registrar would save money 
and provide stability to me.

I would be interested in knowing if any one has the same need, experience, 
interest and investigated further more about the cons and pros.
jfc

On 04:26 05/04/02, William X Walsh said:

>Again, Richard, can you please direct me to where you see a
>requirement that Registrars have a public service available?
>
>I can find no such requirement, but I may be missing something.
>
>I, for one, would have a problem with such a requirement, as I
>can see a justification for someone to become a registrar to provide
>domain registration services to a select group of clients, and have no
>interest in dealing with the general public.  And I do not see any
>harm from that, since the public has numerous other registrars which
>they can choose to do business with.
>
>I do not believe such a requirement exists, nor do I believe it should
>exist, so I am trying to understand the nature of your complaint and
>what exactly you are seeking as a solution.
>
>--
>Best regards,
>William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
>--
>Save Internet Radio!
>CARP will kill Webcasting!
>http://www.saveinternetradio.org/
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Fri,  5 Apr 2002 15:52:03 +0200 (CEST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Public Statement to the Boards of Afilias, Neulevel,  ICANN and the Subcommittee for Telecommunications and the Internet

It is another illegal lottery ;-)
you could increase your chances by buying more "registrar accredition tickets" ;-)

see paraava and BONDI LLC

simon

>I do not believe such a requirement exists, nor do I believe it should
>exist, so I am trying to understand the nature of your complaint and
>what exactly you are seeking as a solution.

>--
>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 11:53:54 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ICANN Reform -- Process Issues

If we review the posts made to the Transfers TF since the first of this year, 
we can come to the following conclusions:

There have been no postings made by the ISP constituency, none by the IPC, 
none by the Non-Commercial constituency representatives that replaced Milton 
Mueller, no substantive comments by the BC representative that is not the 
Chair, and no postings by the representative of the GA.  What does this tell 
us?  We now have a thoroughly non-representative group in which only six 
people are currently participating through written comments, and not one of 
them represents the interests of registrants who are most affected by the 
issue of transfers.  

The TF process only serves to lock in those who choose not to participate, 
and manages to exclude everyone else that has good cause to participate... 
and even those that can participate do so only in a limited fashion (there 
have been more postings made by the Chair's personal executive assistant than 
by the ccTLDs and gTLDs combined).  

We have been arguing since Day One that registrants need to be included in 
the policy-making process, most especially when such policy-making directly 
affects their interests.  Recently we have seen a number of postings by 
Richard Henderson whose organization represents the interests of registrants. 
 There are other organizations as well that concern themselves with 
registrant issues.  But none of these organizations has ever been invited to 
participate in the process, and every attempt to include such groups has been 
rebuffed.  Its bad enough that there is no representation for registrants 
within either the DNSO or ICANN, but the fact that "interested parties", 
whose rights are ostensibly protected under our Bylaws, are routinely refused 
"participation" demonstrates how perverse the TF process has become.

This process (denying representation and participation to others that have a 
right to be involved) is the hallmark of the BC and several of their allied 
constituencies that control the NC.  They are at the root of everything that 
is wrong, sick, and putrid within the DNSO.  Let's not forget how often these 
groups acted in concert to deny the possibility of an individual's 
constituency.  It is this group that has summarily refused to establish open 
working groups, and which has steadfastly refused to even "discuss" the 
restructuring of the DNSO as proposed by the membership of the GA.  These are 
the folks that seek to muzzle the fair and open discussion of ideas so that 
only their views may prevail.

If we are to reform the ICANN, we need to take steps to curb the abuse of 
power not only at the Board level, but even moreso within the Supporting 
Organizations.  Members of the GA have no votes within the Council of the 
DNSO, and yet our active membership (that is not affliliated with any given 
constituency) far exceeds the membership of most other constituent groups.  
We have been denied representation in the decision-making process, and have 
witnessed the steady erosion of our remaining rights.  Instead of 
constituencies participating in the large open working groups of the GA, we 
now have only solitary GA participants in groups of the NC.  

It is not time to "improve" the TF process.  It is time to thoroughly 
repudiate it as an artifice designed solely to limit input and to manipulate 
results.  When Stuart Lynn talks about the problems within ICANN, we all know 
that the blame for many of those problems lays right at the doorstep of the 
Names Council.  Most of their Task Forces have been doing a pathetic job and 
the guidance being offered to the Board is practically useless.  The 
Structure TF is a joke, the Review TF was a disaster, and the Transfers TF 
has accomplished next-to-nothing in the last five months.

We are now at the point where we all need to actively discuss the reform or 
replacement of ICANN.  The Non-Commercial constituency called for a working 
group to involve everyone in the process, but again the Council vetoed that 
idea and returned to a Council Task Force approach.  Having listened to the 
last TF teleconference, I am now fully convinced that this TF will also fail 
miserably, and will offer guidance only at such a high level of generality 
that its recommendations will be practically useless.

This Council is not prepared to learn from its mistakes (the DNSO Review was 
sufficent proof of that).  We must advise the Board that eliminating this 
Council in particular is in the best interest of ICANN and long overdue.

- --
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 09:37:12 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Verisign continues to remove expiration dates from WHOIS

Hi,

Can someone from Verisign comment as to why expiration dates continue
to disappear from the WHOIS? Another example is AOY.com:

Record last updated on 04-Apr-2002.
Record created on 05-Mar-1997.
Database last updated on 5-Apr-2002 01:12:00 EST.

The prior example was Auction-Barn.com:

Record last updated on 15-Mar-2002.
Record created on 26-Jan-2000.
Database last updated on 5-Apr-2002 01:12:00 EST.

Someone on the OpenSRS mailing list mentioned that as they renewed
their domains at Network Solutions, the expiration dates disappeared?
Is this a new Verisign policy? If so, how does this mesh with their
Registrar requirements with ICANN?

Is this a Y2K bug, perhaps? Bruce Beckwith had said any domain
registered in the past 2 years doesn't get affected, i.e. this means
any domain after the Year 2000.

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01717.html

Is the Registry database safe, and Y2K compliant? I do financial
modeling, and know date-arithmetic is of critical importance -- but
this stuff should have been tested and fixed 2 years ago!

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
- --
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 13:32:11 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Survey

It never came up during any discussion. As mentioned previously however, its
not too late to get additions dropped in via Dan (as the GA constituency
rep...)

Thanks,

- -rwr

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal
Realname Keyword: Heathrow Declaration
Old Skool DNS Address: http://www.byte.org/heathrow

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 11:58 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Survey

> Ross,
> Where is the question about the bankruptcy clause?
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ross Wm.
> Rader
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 6:41 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Survey
>
>
> Danny - feel free to stand by them, but you incorrect in this case. Not
> having bothered to check the link that you presented as proof of some
> conspiracy, I can't talk on an informed basis concerning which draft of
the
> survey that you are talking about - however, this document has undergone
> many revisions - all based on input and criticism put forth by the
drafting
> team.
>
> At this point, I can't remember who was even responsible for putting
forward
> the first draft (I can look it up when I get back to the office if its
> important) - but I do distinctly remember a number of conversations,
dozens
> of emails and a conference call or two between thedrafting team members
> through the preparation of this draft.
>
> The important task now is for the TF to read through this draft, tear it
> apart (or not) and get it into the hands of users that aren't
> directly/officially represented in ICANN.
>
> -rwr
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 12:18 PM
> 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
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 13:59:59 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] BC Position Paper

Dear Marilyn,

In your draft, "Toward a Business Constituency Position on ICANN 
Restructuring and Evolution", you advise BC members to "Examine the proposed 
"forum" structure to determine any improved benefits to the functioning of 
policy development over the existing constituency model of the DNSO".  

Your stated reason for such an examination, in editorial comments made to 
Philip (that are still in the source code of the document) was:  LET'S BE 
OPEN TO NEW IDEAS; IT MIGHT BE TO OUR BENEFIT TO CONSIDER THIS, GIVEN WHAT WE 
MAY FACE OTHERWISE WHEN YOU ARE NO LONGER CHAIR.

Essentially what you are stating is... as long as we will no longer control 
the NC, we might as well consider other options.  This strikes me as a rather 
self-serving approach to ICANN restructuring concerns.  

- --
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 15:07:12 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Survey

>   Again why should any additions rely on any one person to be
> considered or added to the survey?  Such a requirement
> creates a single point of failure, as well as violates the
> Open and transparency requirement of the MoU and the White
> Paper.

For the simple reason that distributed drafting doesn't work (at some point,
someone has to sit in front of the text input device and bang some keys -
definite single point of failure there).

I fail to see where this violates the MoU/WP as well - if there is consensus
in the <insertforumname> that the designate rep should take a position
forward and if that rep is successful in convincing the other TF members
that the position is a GoodThing(TM) then that position will be reflected in
whatever output the TF produces.

In my mind, this is a much healthier process than the working groups because
the various positions from each group already constitutes rough consensus
leaving the TF almost solely to deal with how the various positions best fit
together. This stands in stark contrast to the WG proceedings that I have
seen to this point that see the WG dealing with procedural wrangling due to
the sheer volume of participants. The TF model is certainly more removed
from the front line, but then again, not every citizen gets a seat in the
house of representatives anyways...

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Survey

> Ross and all assembly members,
>
>   Again why should any additions rely on any one person to be
> considered or added to the survey?  Such a requirement
> creates a single point of failure, as well as violates the
> Open and transparency requirement of the MoU and the White
> Paper.
>
> Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>
> > It never came up during any discussion. As mentioned previously however,
its
> > not too late to get additions dropped in via Dan (as the GA constituency
> > rep...)
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -rwr
> >
> > Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal
> > Realname Keyword: Heathrow Declaration
> > Old Skool DNS Address: http://www.byte.org/heathrow
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 11:58 PM
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Survey
> >
> > > Ross,
> > > Where is the question about the bankruptcy clause?
> > > Regards,
> > > Joanna
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ross
Wm.
> > > Rader
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 6:41 PM
> > > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Survey
> > >
> > >
> > > Danny - feel free to stand by them, but you incorrect in this case.
Not
> > > having bothered to check the link that you presented as proof of some
> > > conspiracy, I can't talk on an informed basis concerning which draft
of
> > the
> > > survey that you are talking about - however, this document has
undergone
> > > many revisions - all based on input and criticism put forth by the
> > drafting
> > > team.
> > >
> > > At this point, I can't remember who was even responsible for putting
> > forward
> > > the first draft (I can look it up when I get back to the office if its
> > > important) - but I do distinctly remember a number of conversations,
> > dozens
> > > of emails and a conference call or two between thedrafting team
members
> > > through the preparation of this draft.
> > >
> > > The important task now is for the TF to read through this draft, tear
it
> > > apart (or not) and get it into the hands of users that aren't
> > > directly/officially represented in ICANN.
> > >
> > > -rwr
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <[email-masked]>
> > > To: <[email-masked]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 12:18 PM
> > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
>
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1117
*************************