Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1118
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, April 6 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1118

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

Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:50:24 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Survey

Ross writes:

<< 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... >>

... and the House is not populated exclusively by lobbyists that represent 
only special interest groups, it actually has members elected to represent 
the general public so that it can keep groups like yours in check.  The 
"rough consensus" in the House is that policy should be decided by 
representatives of the public, not by commercial interests.  You might want 
to keep that in mind while you preach about the virtues of the "consensus" of 
your limited group of stakeholders.  The moment you act to exclude the public 
from the decision-making process, you forfeit all right to claim consensus.

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

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

Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:08:09 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Survey

Danny,

I used a lower case "H" and a lower case "R" for a reason. As to any hope of
having a productive dialogue on this subject, I've pretty much given up -
your rhetoric is excessive and bordering on offensive.

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Survey

> Ross writes:
>
> << 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... >>
>
> ... and the House is not populated exclusively by lobbyists that represent
> only special interest groups, it actually has members elected to represent
> the general public so that it can keep groups like yours in check.  The
> "rough consensus" in the House is that policy should be decided by
> representatives of the public, not by commercial interests.  You might
want
> to keep that in mind while you preach about the virtues of the "consensus"
of
> your limited group of stakeholders.  The moment you act to exclude the
public
> from the decision-making process, you forfeit all right to claim
consensus.
>

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

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

Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 16:23:59 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Reform -- Process Issues

Danny,

a) most of the substantive work is done during the teleconferences,
including one where slots were reserved for outside people including
several for the GA.  If you bother to read the minutes from the last one
you will note that I could have been accused of hogging the microphone.
b) more than once I have posted here reminding the GA that if there is
consensus I will carry to the TF (actually to either of the task forces
I serve on).

so before talking about denying representation, etc. it would be nice to
get the facts straight please. There may indeed be the problems you
speak of but I dont see that you have proved them.

The *specific* problem here that you are shining a light on is not the
Transfer TF. It is functioning of the GA.  Despite the best efforts of
the GA chairs, the GA has not been able to consistently come up with
consensus or even strongy delineated views, for me to bring to the
table. I would even bring to the TF table stuff from the GA that I
happen to strongly disagree with...should that arise. Im here to do a
job and I said I would do my best to represent, and...to the best of my
ability...I will.

Please, so much time is spent internally fighting and complaining about
the outside.  Can we not do a better job here in the GA?   A sure way to
miss out on the party is to not come prepared. I am no fan of ICANN or
its structure, etc. But while we are stuck with it, why do the best we
can instead of complaining?

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 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
- --
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 13:34:04 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Reform -- Process Issues

Your words are wasted on Danny.

He doesn't understand that development process is a vital aspect of
being able to accomplish substantive work.

He just wants you to present his own opinion as the position of the
GA, and then go and attack anyone who points out that it would be
inappropriate to do so.

Friday, Friday, April 05, 2002, 1:23:59 PM, Dan Steinberg wrote:

> Danny,

> a) most of the substantive work is done during the teleconferences,
> including one where slots were reserved for outside people including
> several for the GA.  If you bother to read the minutes from the last one
> you will note that I could have been accused of hogging the microphone.
> b) more than once I have posted here reminding the GA that if there is
> consensus I will carry to the TF (actually to either of the task forces
> I serve on).

> so before talking about denying representation, etc. it would be nice to
> get the facts straight please. There may indeed be the problems you
> speak of but I dont see that you have proved them.

> The *specific* problem here that you are shining a light on is not the
> Transfer TF. It is functioning of the GA.  Despite the best efforts of
> the GA chairs, the GA has not been able to consistently come up with
> consensus or even strongy delineated views, for me to bring to the
> table. I would even bring to the TF table stuff from the GA that I
> happen to strongly disagree with...should that arise. Im here to do a
> job and I said I would do my best to represent, and...to the best of my
> ability...I will.

> Please, so much time is spent internally fighting and complaining about
> the outside.  Can we not do a better job here in the GA?   A sure way to
> miss out on the party is to not come prepared. I am no fan of ICANN or
> its structure, etc. But while we are stuck with it, why do the best we
> can instead of complaining?

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

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

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

Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 18:10:34 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: BC Position Paper

Danny, and dear fellow GA members,

I stand by the statement that we need to open to new ideas, Danny. The document is a draft, out for comment to the BC constituency for their feedback and comments and discussion within the BC.

In fact, I have been saying that same thing--at this time of the evolution of ICANN, I think the BC needs to be open to ideas. You pointed out that I said it poorly, and you are correct in that. The Forum idea presented by Stuart would also result in a change in more than chair!  My own personal perspective is that an evolutionary approach would be more optimal; but as I said in my statement at the mike in Accra, we don't yet fully understand what the forums would look like. 

Hence, ... be open to new ideas.

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 2:00 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Subject: 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, 05 Apr 2002 20:38:55 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Transfers - Bankruptcy Clause

Look Ross, as you very well know, it's nonsense to say "it never came up in
discussion", it has been raised on this very list only recently.
Furthermore, you have often accommodated my suggestions in the past when it
suited, so do not start throwing GA Reps in my face as if there is some
procedural hurdle I have to pass in order for my request to be acknowledged.
You, meaning the TF in general, have a duty to establish how Registrants
feel about all aspects of the Transfer process, and to that end, I have put
the Task Force on notice that the bankruptcy clause is causing registrants,
at least the ones I know, some concern.

At the very least, this clause is fuzzy and needs clarifying. *After* some
discussion, some vague notion arose that it is for the benefit of registrars
who have large US multinational corporate clients who, they imagine, may
well run up large bills for unrelated services and therefore this clause
provides them with some means to recoup possible losses by freezing a
possible asset under circumstances of a pending bankruptcy, notwithstanding
that "pending bankruptcy" is not defined in the agreement and certainly
holds no legal meaning outside the US territory.

Whatever it's purpose, that is of absolutely no concern whatsoever to the
individual private citizen who registers a domain name, pays his
registration bill of about $10.00 a year, then wishes to Transfer
Registrars. From that class of Registrant's perspective, this clause is
onerous, outrageous and open to abuse. How would you like it if you could
not change your long distance phone carrier at home unless you provide the
losing carrier with your social security number and wait for them to confirm
that you are not pending bankruptcy?

Now, either you address this issue by adding a simple question about the
bankruptcy clause to the questionnaire, which I am quite willing to help
you, Dan, or whoever, write, or I will be the first to accuse this Task
Force of only being prepared to ask questions on issues for which it already
has the answers from registrars.

Be careful not to shoot yourself in the foot.

Joanna

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 1:32 PM
To: Joanna Lane; [email-masked]; [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 18:00:31 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfers - Bankruptcy Clause

Friday, Friday, April 05, 2002, 5:38:55 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> Look Ross, as you very well know, it's nonsense to say "it never came up in

And as you very well know, this issue is not the reason why the
transfer task force was created.  It was created because of the
policies of a couple registrars who wanted to stop the flood of
transfers away from their horribly overpriced and customer service
lacking registrars, and so took Draconian measures that have resulted
in great hardship to registrants.

This is an issue that is effecting registrants on a DAILY BASIS.  Your
little problem with this clause is not effecting anyone, is not
pressing business, and frankly, IT CAN WAIT.

- -- 
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, 05 Apr 2002 21:42:51 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Transfers - Bankruptcy Clause

William,
Right now, I am trying to hear Registrant voices, and you're a reseller,
sorry, but your opinion that the TF is incapable of dealing with more than
one problem at the same time is noted. The view from here is that we have
the opportunity to remove an area of future abuse as well as sorting out an
existing one after the event, which can be done by a simple stroke of the
pen to delete the clause. This wouldn't adversely affect anyone and if
registrars want to introduce such a clause, frankly, IT CAN WAIT.

Regards,
Joanna

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 9:01 PM
To: Joanna Lane
Cc: Ross Wm. Rader; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfers - Bankruptcy Clause

Friday, Friday, April 05, 2002, 5:38:55 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> Look Ross, as you very well know, it's nonsense to say "it never came up
in

And as you very well know, this issue is not the reason why the
transfer task force was created.  It was created because of the
policies of a couple registrars who wanted to stop the flood of
transfers away from their horribly overpriced and customer service
lacking registrars, and so took Draconian measures that have resulted
in great hardship to registrants.

This is an issue that is effecting registrants on a DAILY BASIS.  Your
little problem with this clause is not effecting anyone, is not
pressing business, and frankly, IT CAN WAIT.

- --
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 19:17:31 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfers - Bankruptcy Clause

Friday, Friday, April 05, 2002, 6:42:51 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> William,
> Right now, I am trying to hear Registrant voices, and you're a reseller,
> sorry, but your opinion that the TF is incapable of dealing with more than
> one problem at the same time is noted. The view from here is that we have
> the opportunity to remove an area of future abuse as well as sorting out an
> existing one after the event, which can be done by a simple stroke of the
> pen to delete the clause. This wouldn't adversely affect anyone and if
> registrars want to introduce such a clause, frankly, IT CAN WAIT.

The clause has been there for how long alread, Joanna?

They don't have to wait for anything.

This task force was created for a specific purpose, which is vastly
more important than your wish to be rid of this clause.  Anything you
do now which could hold up a resolution of the real issue this TF is
dealing with, only causes further harm to registrants.

Frankly, you are the one suggesting a change, the burden to prove that
the change is broadly supported and in the best interests of the
internet community is on you.  Feel free to get to work on your best
practices format to try and do that, independent of the real and
pressing issues facing this task force right now.

- -- 
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 22:22:42 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Transfers - Bankruptcy Clause

Joanna, can you draft the question/(s) related to the bankruptcy issue and get Dan to submit them. Actually all of the TF members are asked to do outreach on the survey so that it is "useful" .. we won't get it all right, but we can,  over a short few days/couple of weeks, get some useful input to modify the survey.

Ross is right that this topic didn't come up. BUT, that is the purpose of this outreach. To capture issues like this.

I'm not commenting on what changes the TF makes in the survey. I am noting that if you/someone can submit a question, that advances the cause. 

I wonder if it belongs in a separate section in the question: Other issues which concern you. I haven't talked to anyone on the TF, but your emails made me wonder about how to capture this issue more clearly.

MC

- -----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 8:39 PM
To: Ross Wm. Rader; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Transfers - Bankruptcy Clause

Look Ross, as you very well know, it's nonsense to say "it never came up in
discussion", it has been raised on this very list only recently.
Furthermore, you have often accommodated my suggestions in the past when it
suited, so do not start throwing GA Reps in my face as if there is some
procedural hurdle I have to pass in order for my request to be acknowledged.
You, meaning the TF in general, have a duty to establish how Registrants
feel about all aspects of the Transfer process, and to that end, I have put
the Task Force on notice that the bankruptcy clause is causing registrants,
at least the ones I know, some concern.

At the very least, this clause is fuzzy and needs clarifying. *After* some
discussion, some vague notion arose that it is for the benefit of registrars
who have large US multinational corporate clients who, they imagine, may
well run up large bills for unrelated services and therefore this clause
provides them with some means to recoup possible losses by freezing a
possible asset under circumstances of a pending bankruptcy, notwithstanding
that "pending bankruptcy" is not defined in the agreement and certainly
holds no legal meaning outside the US territory.

Whatever it's purpose, that is of absolutely no concern whatsoever to the
individual private citizen who registers a domain name, pays his
registration bill of about $10.00 a year, then wishes to Transfer
Registrars. From that class of Registrant's perspective, this clause is
onerous, outrageous and open to abuse. How would you like it if you could
not change your long distance phone carrier at home unless you provide the
losing carrier with your social security number and wait for them to confirm
that you are not pending bankruptcy?

Now, either you address this issue by adding a simple question about the
bankruptcy clause to the questionnaire, which I am quite willing to help
you, Dan, or whoever, write, or I will be the first to accuse this Task
Force of only being prepared to ask questions on issues for which it already
has the answers from registrars.

Be careful not to shoot yourself in the foot.

Joanna

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 1:32 PM
To: Joanna Lane; [email-masked]; [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

- --
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 23:57:22 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Transfers - Bankruptcy Clause

Marilyn,
I believe that neither the Registrant, nor the Registrar receives any
tangible benefit from this clause, at least I have yet to hear one. So
before I can start asking Registrants whether or not they have any possible
objections to this clause, could I please clarify through the TF what this
clause actually means by submitting the following queries through you as
chair:-

<cite bankruptcy clause>

1) What is the benefit to the registrant from this clause?
2) What is the benefit to the registrar from this clause?
3) Does this clause discriminate against US based registrants, (since there
is no centralized source of bankruptcy information for all registrants
worldwide)?
4) Does the Registrar have the sole right to exercise this clause? If so,
how?
5) Does this clause give the Registrar the right to disclosure by an
individual registrant of their personal information such as Social Security
Number, Date of birth, Bank details and so on?
6) Do you object to disclosure of your personal information (as cited in
question 5) for this purpose?
7) Do you consider that in exercising this clause, the privacy directive of
the European Union in relation to individual registrants who are EU citizens
would be relevant?
8) Assuming the clause allows the Registrar to obtain a Registrant's
personal information in order to prove whether or not they are pending
bankruptcy, can that then be sold alongside other data already provided by
Registrants for whois? If not, why not? If so, do you object to this?
9) It has been pointed out that nothing that can be written into a contract
is worth a penny against privileged creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding, so
is this whole issue a waste of time?
10) If so, should the clause be deleted?
11) If not, how does this clause make the claim worth more than those of the
regular creditors?
12) What is the purpose of this clause actually?
13) If the registrar invokes this clause to deny transfer, should the
registrar be able to resell the domain name against the registrants wishes
even if the renewal fees are paid?
14) If the annual renewal fees are paid, should the registrant be free to
transfer the name regardless of whether or not they are personally pending
bankruptcy?

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: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 03:08:52 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Reform -- Process Issues

Dan Steinberg writes:

<< more than once I have posted here reminding the GA that if there is 
consensus I will carry to the TF >>

The establishment of consensus is not a precondition to carrying views to the 
TF.  All relevant comments (whether you consider them to be minority or 
majority) must be forwarded.  Disregarding anyone's comments is antithetical 
to the principle of open and transparent notice-and-comment provisions upon 
which this organization is based.  
- --
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 #1118
*************************