Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1121
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, April 9 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1121

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

Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 02:20:57 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] policy-making options

Hello Thomas,

the options list is most helpful! 

Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> wrote (quotes reformatted):
>In order to add a bit more structure to the discussion on policy-making, here are a couple of parameters by which policy-making can be "tuned", or by which different options may be characterized.  Note that "working group" and "task force" are mostly used interchangeably in what follows:
>
> - Composition of working group: Same for all topics at a given time
>   (<=> names council or board does everything itself); appointed by
>   council or board (strict task force model; committees as used by
>   board); appointed by stakeholder groups (loose task force model);
>   self-selected (working group model).

Some pros and cons:

Same for all topics at a given time
 - high risk of excluding concerned groups
 - huge individual workload
 - not every group member can be an expert for every topic
 - if done on board level: no checks/balances
 + continuity
 + limited, workable group size

direct appointment/strict task force model
 - risk of excluding concerned groups
 + group members (at least in theory) chosen by expertise
 + workload more evenly distributed
 + limited, workable group size

indirect appointment/loose task force model
 + less risk of excluding concerned groups
 + group members (at least in theory) chosen by expertise
 + workload more evenly distributed
 + limited, workable group size

open working group model
 - may result in too large groups
 - working group (and its proposals) may be dismissed as self-selected
 + little risk of excluding concerned groups or individuals
 + workload can be distributed well

> - Communication with public while work is going on: Listen-only plus
>   behind-the-curtain discussions with groups perceived important
>   (board; board committees); active outreach (some of the current
>   task forces; counterexample: dot-org; it may be argued that
>   dot-org registrant representation was lacking; outreach should
>   include _exchange_ of views and arguments); outreach built into
>   self-selected membership (working group model).

Listen-only plus behind-the-curtain dicussions
 - intransparent process
 - privileges powerful groups with close contacts to e.g. board
 - decisions may face (surprising amounts of) criticism
 + not very costly ;)
 
Active outreach
 + more transparency by actively collecting input
 + depending on method, more informed input
 - active outreach leads to follow-up work
 - quality of responses may vary considerably
   which may make weighting difficult

Outreach built into WG membership
 + exchange of views possible
 - may additionally favour WG members which are eloquent
   and permanently online
 + high level of transparency
 - may not reach out to all groups
 - probably better suited for individuals than groups (?)
 
(Obviously, adding the + and - is not sufficient.)

>   Additional options (orthogonal): Public archives of discussions;
>   dedicated comment periods.
>
> - Interaction with the board: Through intermediate body (DNSO
>   process via names council; may or may not have power to modify
>   input from WG); directly (board committees).

This is perhaps the most interesting question. Do intermediate 
bodies refine the policies and work as a checks-and-balances 
system -- or do they blur responsibilities, alter the bottom-up
nature of the process and create a superfluous layer inbetween?
(Both probably?)

>  Additional options (orthogonal to that):
>
>  * Output may be considered binding/non-binding/almost-binding.

If the output of the task force is considered binding for
all bodies, there is no need for other bodies. If it is
considered non-binding, there is little need for the task
force. I think that an overall oversight is needed, and
it's hard to imagine any (public or private) corporation
without some form of intervention/review to make sure the
policies are at least not contradicting themselves, too costly
and follow the procedures properly. Operationalizing "almost 
binding" could mean to require some sort of supermajority 
to turn down a policy developed in accordance with the 
procedures.

>  * Board may interact with TF while work is going on.  Similar to
>    relationship between public and WG.

The task forces/working groups need some way of communicating
and explaining their findings to the Board, I think -- probably
during the work, definitely when the final results are ready.
It's not only about misunderstandings (deliberate or not),
but the Board may also be interested in specific aspects which
the TF/WG only mentions briefly. 

>One thing which should be kept in mind while thinking about these options is that different circles of stakeholders may imply the need for different mechanisms.  What is appropriate for consensus-building in the PSO concerning their policy area may be entirely inappropriate for the DNSO (or its successor), or for a ccSO.  Also, cross-SO discussions may require a process different from discussions within individual SOs.

Very much agreed, and I think /we/ should look for solutions which
are appropriate for (gTLD) domain name policy development
and cross-policy/ICANN overall issues. It's highly unlikely that 
the appropriate solution for gTLD names is also ideal for WAVE 
and AVI Codec numbering (should it ever become controversial).

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 12:17:57 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] policy-making options

At 02:20 9/04/02 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>Hello Thomas,
>
>the options list is most helpful!

Indeed it is. The pro's and Con's that we are all listing here are useful 
guideposts for whatever on-line representational structure is now being 
created.

>Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]> wrote (quotes reformatted):
> >In order to add a bit more structure to the discussion on policy-making, 
> here are a couple of parameters by which policy-making can be "tuned", or 
> by which different options may be characterized.  Note that "working 
> group" and "task force" are mostly used interchangeably in what follows:
> >
> > - Composition of working group: Same for all topics at a given time
> >   (<=> names council or board does everything itself); appointed by
> >   council or board (strict task force model; committees as used by
> >   board); appointed by stakeholder groups (loose task force model);
> >   self-selected (working group model).
>
>Some pros and cons:
>
>Same for all topics at a given time
>  - high risk of excluding concerned groups
>  - huge individual workload
>  - not every group member can be an expert for every topic
>  - if done on board level: no checks/balances
>  + continuity
>  + limited, workable group size
>
>direct appointment/strict task force model
>  - risk of excluding concerned groups
>  + group members (at least in theory) chosen by expertise
>  + workload more evenly distributed
>  + limited, workable group size
>
>indirect appointment/loose task force model
>  + less risk of excluding concerned groups
>  + group members (at least in theory) chosen by expertise
>  + workload more evenly distributed
>  + limited, workable group size
>
>open working group model
>  - may result in too large groups
>  - working group (and its proposals) may be dismissed as self-selected
>  + little risk of excluding concerned groups or individuals
>  + workload can be distributed well

Dismissing a WG for being self-selected is not necessarily justified. In 
many cases self-selection is more legitimate than selection.
Large groups are a plus, not a minus, as long as their energy can be 
organized and distributed.
- - Minus is that an open WG that works with a mailing list, may be hindered 
by individuals with a mission to be contentious. Remedies are moderation 
and/or the use of web based ("pull" rather than "push")  discussion 
mechanisms.

> > - Communication with public while work is going on: Listen-only plus
> >   behind-the-curtain discussions with groups perceived important
> >   (board; board committees); active outreach (some of the current
> >   task forces; counterexample: dot-org; it may be argued that
> >   dot-org registrant representation was lacking; outreach should
> >   include _exchange_ of views and arguments); outreach built into
> >   self-selected membership (working group model).
>
>Listen-only plus behind-the-curtain dicussions
>  - intransparent process
>  - privileges powerful groups with close contacts to e.g. board
>  - decisions may face (surprising amounts of) criticism
>  + not very costly ;)

Yes :),  democracy carries a price tag.

>
>Active outreach
>  + more transparency by actively collecting input
>  + depending on method, more informed input
>  - active outreach leads to follow-up work
>  - quality of responses may vary considerably

- - outreach can be engineered to cover a specific audience.

>    which may make weighting difficult
>
>Outreach built into WG membership
>  + exchange of views possible
>  - may additionally favour WG members which are eloquent
>    and permanently online
>  + high level of transparency
>  - may not reach out to all groups
>  - probably better suited for individuals than groups (?)
>
>(Obviously, adding the + and - is not sufficient.)
>
> >   Additional options (orthogonal): Public archives of discussions;
> >   dedicated comment periods.
> >
> > - Interaction with the board: Through intermediate body (DNSO
> >   process via names council; may or may not have power to modify
> >   input from WG); directly (board committees).
>
>This is perhaps the most interesting question. Do intermediate
>bodies refine the policies and work as a checks-and-balances
>system -- or do they blur responsibilities, alter the bottom-up
>nature of the process and create a superfluous layer inbetween?
>(Both probably?)

  The intermediate nature is necessary to make the bottom-up process 
workable and on-the-record.
Policies do get better formulated if they are subject to a longer and more 
participative process.

Direct input with Board committees will favour professional lobby groups.

Thanks Thomas and Alexander for starting this fundamental re-think thread.

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 21:25:44 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] policy-making options

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:20:57AM +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> 
> open working group model
>  - may result in too large groups
>  - working group (and its proposals) may be dismissed as self-selected
>  + little risk of excluding concerned groups or individuals

This is simply not true.  One of the most disturbing characteristics of 
open WGs is that the obnoxious participants drive off people who might 
otherwise participate.  

>  + workload can be distributed well

There is no evidence that this ever worked, either.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
Technical Support Manager, ICANN            lonesome."
[email-masked],[email-masked]                    -- Mark Twain

- --
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: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 21:50:03 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] policy-making options

Monday, Monday, April 08, 2002, 9:25:44 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:20:57AM +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>> 
>> open working group model
>>  - may result in too large groups
>>  - working group (and its proposals) may be dismissed as self-selected
>>  + little risk of excluding concerned groups or individuals

> This is simply not true.  One of the most disturbing characteristics of 
> open WGs is that the obnoxious participants drive off people who might 
> otherwise participate.  

Workgroup C didn't have this problem, and if any subject was going to
do that, its the new gTLD subject.

- -- 
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: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 22:16:32 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] policy-making options

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:50:03PM -0700, William X Walsh wrote:
> Monday, Monday, April 08, 2002, 9:25:44 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:20:57AM +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> >> 
> >> open working group model
> >>  - may result in too large groups
> >>  - working group (and its proposals) may be dismissed as self-selected
> >>  + little risk of excluding concerned groups or individuals
> 
> > This is simply not true.  One of the most disturbing characteristics of 
> > open WGs is that the obnoxious participants drive off people who might 
> > otherwise participate.  
> 
> Workgroup C didn't have this problem, and if any subject was going to
> do that, its the new gTLD subject.

An occasional exception would not invalidate the general observation.

And in any case, many would claime that WG-C most certainly did have
that problem.  I certainly know several interested parties who didn't
participate. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
Technical Support Manager, ICANN            lonesome."
[email-masked],[email-masked]                    -- Mark Twain

- --
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: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 22:36:20 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ebb & flow

What is currently causing the lull in the GA?  Certainly not issues.  I
don't think apathy.

I do not even think lack of efficacy.  Not even futility.(as all matters
intellectual are eventually futile)

When are we going to learn to elect leaders for our GA chair positions.

We elect these great guys with absolutely no people rallying charisma.
The last six have been out standing in each of their fields all by
themselves, while the GA twists in the wind without a leader to bring
purpose.

We must develop two distinct positions here.  One that leads the GA and
one that advocates that position to others.  And we must stop electing
scribes, technicians and historians to lead us.

Sincerely,
Eric

- --
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: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 22:43:57 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] WG vs. TF

It is not even funny to pretend to play Ester Dyson on these issues.

I believe Alex and Thomas should be ashamed to be playing this game
when,
Thomas has not set up the WG that he promised immediately following
Accra and
Alex is vying for a fully funded AL position that he worked out there in
Accra.

No one in the GA has ever advocated TFs.  We have worked on them, given
input to them,
attacked them, condemned them, watched them, but no real* member here
has ever condoned them, as opposed to WGs.

(*a real member is someone who speaks sincerely and not out of a desire
to maintain power elsewhere)

Sincerely,
Eric

- --
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: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 23:08:25 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] policy-making options

Kent Crispin wrote:

> > Workgroup C didn't have this problem, and if any subject was going to
> > do that, its the new gTLD subject.
>
> An occasional exception would not invalidate the general observation.
>
> And in any case, many would claime that WG-C most certainly did have
> that problem.  I certainly know several interested parties who didn't
> participate.

The operative word here Kent is "didn't". In a TF they "couldn't".

A debate over the time and place for a TF in a bottoms up open and transparent
body, is sickening.
Is this a professional society that the US DoC turned the Internet over to? NO!

Sincerely,
Eric

- --
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: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 09:26:20 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] policy-making options

Hello Joop,

At 09.04.2002 12:17, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>open working group model
>> - may result in too large groups
>> - working group (and its proposals) may be dismissed as self-selected
>> + little risk of excluding concerned groups or individuals
>> + workload can be distributed well
>
>Dismissing a WG for being self-selected is not necessarily justified. In many cases self-selection is more legitimate than selection.

My point was that it is easy for an oversight body
(or intermediate body) to dismiss the results of an
open working group process by calling it self-selected
and then to replace the working group policy
recommendation by their own.

>Large groups are a plus, not a minus, as long as their energy can be organized and distributed.
>- Minus is that an open WG that works with a mailing list, may be hindered by individuals with a mission to be contentious. Remedies are moderation and/or the use of web based ("pull" rather than "push")  discussion mechanisms.

It's not only a question of the tools -- it would even
be more difficult if everyone was in the same room.
(Let alone teleconference.) It's always a trade-off: Either
the group is sufficiently large to include all concerned
parties or it is sufficiently small to work efficiently.

I believe the active outreach mechanisms must be improved 
significantly (and I believe the At Large could be a useful 
tool for significant outreach), but the group (maybe
"limited working group" is an appropriate label) has to
be built in a way that it can actually achieve results
and arrive at a policy recommendation. If it doesn't, it's
only a discussion forum and the policy will again be made
top-down. 

My personal impression is that the maximum size for such a 
group is somewhere at 15 or 20 persons, regardless of the 
tools used. If that is so (and that's obviously open for
debate), the question is how they are selected so that 
 (a) all groups concerned feel sure that their input will
     not be ignored,
 (b) the group members fulfill the given task and produce
     a report or even a policy recommendation in a reasonable
     amount of time and
 (c) the composition and results of the groups are so
     compelling that bodies higher up in the process do not
     ignore or completely change its findings.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 10:54:03 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] policy-making options

On 2002-04-09 02:20:57 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>Some pros and cons:

I've put up a table of these at 
<http://does-not-exist.org/ga-structure/policy-making.html>; this 
also includes some more points from Joop, Kent, and myself.

- -- 
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: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:41:07 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] policy-making options

On 2002-04-09 02:20:57 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>> - Interaction with the board: Through intermediate body (DNSO
>>   process via names council; may or may not have power to modify
>>   input from WG); directly (board committees).

>This is perhaps the most interesting question. Do intermediate 
>bodies refine the policies and work as a checks-and-balances 
>system -- or do they blur responsibilities, alter the bottom-up 
>nature of the process and create a superfluous layer inbetween? 
>(Both probably?)

The original design of the names council makes some sense to me - 
after all, why shouldn't those who participate in the policy-making 
process also manage it, collectively?  However, I don't believe that 
any council should go further than management, and the most basic 
checks - such as, does the report accurately reflect the outcome of 
discussions, or does it just represent the author's wishes?  

The DNSO's current approach bears the temptation to the council to 
duplicate discussions which have (or should have) happened on the 
task force level, already.

Now, the _really_ interesting part is actually how to apply this 
argument to the board...

>>  Additional options (orthogonal to that):
>>
>>  * Output may be considered binding/non-binding/almost-binding.
>
>If the output of the task force is considered binding for
>all bodies, there is no need for other bodies. 

What do you mean by "binding" at this point?  Unconditionally 
binding?  Binding if process is properly applied?  I was actually 
thinking about the latter.

>If it is considered non-binding, there is little need for the task 
>force. 

Task forces would degrade to a combined outreach and 
"option-finding" mechanism, with any actual decisions still 
happening at the board level.  The ALSC is a nice example for the 
pros and cons of this.  Quite frankly, I don't find this kind of 
mechanism too appealing.

>I think that an overall oversight is needed, and it's hard to 
>imagine any (public or private) corporation without some form of 
>intervention/review to make sure the policies are at least not 
>contradicting themselves, too costly and follow the procedures 
>properly. 

No objection on my side; see above. ;-)

>Operationalizing "almost binding" could mean to require some sort 
>of supermajority to turn down a policy developed in accordance 
>with the procedures.

I suppose we have to further split up the discussion of this for 
different kinds of policy which may emanate from the SOs:

 - Policy proper in the sense of (for instance) the registry 
   agreement, which contains specific process requirements for a 
   policy to be binding for a third party.  It should be noted that 
   ICANN is currently not able to come up with any binding policy in 
   this sense due to the lack of an independent review panel.  (Note 
   that Lynn's proposal would imply a renegotiation of this part of 
   the agreements.  That will be interesting to watch.)

 - Policy in a more general sense, such as with the dot-org 
   divestiture.  This is the area where the board has the largest 
   discretion, since the only question is when policy is considered 
   to bind ICANN (and its board).  What would most likely be needed 
   here is a well-defined mechanism how the board should handle such 
   output from SOs, and what such output should look like. (E.g.: 
   Should the TF draft a board resolution, or should they give a 
   general statement which is going to be translated into a board 
   resolution by the board or by staff?  Should they just outline the 
   contents of a board resolution in very general terms, or should 
   they make much more specific recommendations?  I believe that some 
   of the current confusion over the dot-org resolution is caused by 
   unclarity on this part of the process.)

>>  * Board may interact with TF while work is going on.  Similar to
>>    relationship between public and WG.

>The task forces/working groups need some way of communicating and 
>explaining their findings to the Board, I think -- probably during 
>the work, definitely when the final results are ready. It's not 
>only about misunderstandings (deliberate or not), but the Board 
>may also be interested in specific aspects which the TF/WG only 
>mentions briefly.

Once again, dot-org illustrates some of the things which may happen, 
when Louis Touton provided advice on agreements at a rather late 
point of the task force's work.  I suppose that input would have 
been much more helpful at an earlier stage of the task force's work. 
So we are most likely looking for several kinds of staff and board 
support:

 - editorial/organizational support for task forces
 - compliance checking
 - liaison to the board's thinking

I suppose if anyone has the time for it, the entire dot-org story 
may be an excellent research topic which could produce textbook 
examples for almost all aspects of ICANN process.

>>One thing which should be kept in mind while thinking about 
>>these options is that different circles of stakeholders may 
>>imply the need for different mechanisms.  What is appropriate 
>>for consensus-building in the PSO concerning their policy area 
>>may be entirely inappropriate for the DNSO (or its successor), 
>>or for a ccSO.  Also, cross-SO discussions may require a process 
>>different from discussions within individual SOs.

>Very much agreed, and I think /we/ should look for solutions which 
>are appropriate for (gTLD) domain name policy development and 
>cross-policy/ICANN overall issues. It's highly unlikely that the 
>appropriate solution for gTLD names is also ideal for WAVE and AVI 
>Codec numbering (should it ever become controversial).

Of course.  But don't you think that we should also look for a 
replacement for the board's highly transparent ;-) committees?

- -- 
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: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 10:28:03 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] policy-making options

On 07:16 09/04/02, Kent Crispin said:
>On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:50:03PM -0700, William X Walsh wrote:
> > Monday, Monday, April 08, 2002, 9:25:44 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:20:57AM +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> > >>
> > >> open working group model
> > >>  - may result in too large groups
> > >>  - working group (and its proposals) may be dismissed as self-selected
> > >>  + little risk of excluding concerned groups or individuals
> >
> > > This is simply not true.  One of the most disturbing characteristics of
> > > open WGs is that the obnoxious participants drive off people who might
> > > otherwise participate.
> >
> > Workgroup C didn't have this problem, and if any subject was going to
> > do that, its the new gTLD subject.
>
>An occasional exception would not invalidate the general observation.
>
>And in any case, many would claime that WG-C most certainly did have
>that problem.  I certainly know several interested parties who didn't
>participate.

Just a minute. Please let not build scientific con/pro rules from one or 
two examples. As presented in Thomas' and Alexander's memos there are a lot 
of parameters involved which interact together. The interest of an analysis 
is to permit to understand the interactions and to reduce the parameter set.

I reviewed quickly these two mails. May I comment that I did not understand 
anything. This is not a négative comment: I am working on an analysis of a 
different part of the network systems trying to reduce a lot of concerns to 
their roots. So I tried to see if I could peruse the mail and understand 
it. Not yet. As I did not for Joanna's and William's Best Practices read 
the same way, but preceiously archived.

I would suggest that Thomas (?) puts his current ideas/findnings on a web 
site and that  Joanna/Williams work on it to see if there can be some 
cross-pollenization with their ideas. Then that we try to reduce all this 
and additions to some limited logical parameter tree. I do not know if it 
will work, but the GA is probably the most diversified Internet competent 
and motivated mailing list. The opportunity to define a "GA's Rules" to 
replace the "Roberts Rules" is unique and worth the try.

Thank you Thomas for keeping the momentum.
jfc

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 10:34:11 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] Re: Open Letter to Mr Jeff Neuman from The Internet Challenge

Dear Jeff,
as you know I did not appreciate your attitude vs Leah Gallagos, for equity 
and common sense of the future of the networks. But this is the second time 
that I want to thank you for your neat fairness.
Bravo and thx for the nets. jfc

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 13:58:57 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] policy-making options

On 09:26 09/04/02, Alexander Svensson said:
>My personal impression is that the maximum size for such a group is 
>somewhere at 15 or 20 persons, regardless of the tools used.

The mathematic of the entier numbers calls for a computing power at the 
power of the number of equations. This is the way you compute the 
organization of an airline: only aircrafts can fly, not .32 of an aircraft 
even of you only have 15 passengers for a 747. 15 years ago I met a 
mathematician who used Craigh machines until he though that if he was more 
clever he could reduce the number of equations. And he started using ... 
Apple IIc. He was selling his results to most of the largest Airlines.

I think you are right abut 15/20 people with a simple e-mail system. And 
that complexity and unreadablity quiclky increase afterward. However the 
purpose of an analysis is to try to understand why people post (because 
they feel their point is not told, accepted, etc) and how a tool should be 
designed which wold permit the people to reduce the noise, the number of 
post while being happy and more productive.

Because the size of the group is three times the number of competent people 
if you include those who want to listen and sak and the ones who wants to 
be listen and asked while they know nothing.
jfc

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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:03:26 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] policy-making options

At 9:25 PM -0700 4/8/02, Kent Crispin wrote:
>This is simply not true.  One of the most disturbing characteristics of
>open WGs is that the obnoxious participants drive off people who might
>otherwise participate.

Agreed. Ban the IPC from working groups, and the problem will be solved.

- -- 
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: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 12:22:25 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Pointless TF Survey

Dear Dan Steinberg and members of the Transfers TF:

The following letter (cited below) was posted to the ICANN public forum:  
http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?offtopic;3CB1D53B00000867

This letter is merely one of a great many that appear in the Forums and which 
may be found in the customer complaint files of several registrars.  With all 
of the available registrant input that we have available to review, why does 
this TF persist in the belief that we require yet another "survey" to 
determine registrants attitudes regarding transfer practices?  Is there any 
compelling reason why we need to gather even more data when sufficient horror 
stories abound?  Why not just get on with the job that you volunteered to do, 
and craft a definitive policy to govern transfers?

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

I recently had a domain name coming up for renewal and thought it would be a 
good time to go to a registrar that was cheaper and had better service.  
Looking at my domain's whois record, I realized that the contact e-mail 
address was an old address that I no longer use.  In fact, the name was 
registered under a pen name I once used as a writer.  I imagined the great 
difficulty I would have proving I owned the domain just to get the contact 
info changed.
So I thought I would just let the domain record expire and then register it 
again with someone else. In fact, I had just done this with a domain at 
another registrar last month and it worked great. But as many have already 
learned, NSI has other plans for expired domains.

I had been monitoring my whois record, waiting for it to come up empty, but 
that never happened.  But one day my mail server address would not resolve.  
I figured that was my cue to go renew domain but my new registrar said the 
domain was not available.  Apparently, NSI still had not released the domain, 
although it was no longer working.

I called up NSI to find out when the domain would be released and after 10 
minutes of trying to get the non-english speaking rep to spell my 4-letter 
domain corectly, I suddenly felt like I was getting a big runaround.  The rep 
told me they would not delete the name until required by ICANN policy.  I 
asked how long that was and they said they didn't know.  "So how do you know 
when to delete it?" I asked.  He said they delete it according to ICANN 
policy. Arghh!

I thought about doing a transfer to another registrar, but was told I could 
not do so without first renewing with them.  I asked for a supervisor who 
fortunately spoke English better and was told it could take up to 60 days for 
the name to be released. In the meantime, I would not be allowed to change 
any contact information or transfer the domain nor could I renew the domain 
with another registrar. The only way I can get my name back is to either 
renew with them or wait an "indefinite" time period for the record to be 
deleted.  They told me this was all according to their service agreement.

I signed a 2-year agreement with NSI for domain registration services when I 
originally registered the domain.  That time period is over and the contract 
expired. They are no longer providing me with their services and I am no 
longer bound to their agreement.  Yet they seem to be able to get away with 
preventing any competitors from renewing my domain for me. They now control 
my domain and the only way for me to get it back is to pay them (and only 
them).

In reading comments at http://nsihorrorstories.com/index.shtml, I see my 
story is nothing unique. This is a clear demonstration of anticompetitive 
practices. Verisign obviously does not want others to take their business so 
rather than end the contract they say the domain is in "unpaid" status and 
use that as an excuse to keep other registrars from taking their business.  
Clearly something needs to be done about this.

- --
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: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 12:58:46 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

The following post has appeared on the registrars list:

A Registrar (most probably a reseller of ICANN accredited Registrar) caused 
one of the most severe massive SPAMs we have ever seen. It goes by those two 
names.

http://www.affordable-domains.com
http://www.renewmydomains.com

it took our mail server down for couple of hours today.  For those who are 
curious, two SPAM messages are attached below.  (see 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02287.html  for details).  
If one of our Resellers would do this we would terminate them.
- -----------------------------------------------

A subsequent post to the registrar's list 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02289.html revealed that 
the reseller operates on behalf of SRSPlus... a Verisign company.

In my opinion, it is time to regulate the re-seller community to the same 
degree that we regulate the activities of registrars.  If registrars take no 
action to police their own industry, and if they are not held accountable for 
the actions of their re-sellers, then this industry is surely begging for the 
same type of governmental intervention that impacted the telecommunications 
industry.   

I, for one, do not seek an enhanced role for governments.  It is ICANN's 
responsibility to manage the Domain Name system.  Resellers acting as loose 
cannons do not serve this industry well, and should be brought under control. 

- --
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 #1121
*************************