Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1123
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, April 11 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1123

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

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 05:31:13 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

Why are there ICANN accredited registars? Does this mere fact not make
ICANN a bit responsible for what those registrars do? After all, it is a
regulated market...

Marc

On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, at 14:57 [=GMT-0400], Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> It seems to me that there is a principle that could reasonably be applied
> here:  If there are already mechanisms in place with various jurisdictions
> around the world to deal with particular issues, then it is unnecessary for
> ICANN to duplicate the associated functions.  For example, I believe that
> most jurisdictions have anti-trust laws and agencies to enforce those, so it
> is unnecessary for ICANN to get involved in anti-trust issues.  Similarly, I
> believe that there are consumer protection mechanisms already in place in
> most major regions of the world, so it is unnecessary for ICANN to get
> involved in consumer protection.
> 
> Therefore, I agree with Michael that the "appropriate place to complain is
> the regulatory authorities in the home of the offender" and not ICANN.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> > [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 1:09 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers
> > 
> > 
> > Sure, and while we are regulating people, let's regulate 
> > fraudulent web
> > pages, all spammers (they use the dns, don't they), and blasphemers.
> > 
> > In other words, NO THANKS.  This is not ICANN's mission.  It is not a
> > technical issue AT ALL -- it's a commercial/regulatory issue and the
> > appropriate place to complain is the regulatory authorities 
> > in the home of
> > the offender.
> > 
> > On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
> > 
> > > 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-full" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 		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
> 
> 

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

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

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 01:37:26 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

Tuesday, Tuesday, April 09, 2002, 8:26:45 PM, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> Why are there ICANN accredited registars? Does this mere fact not make
> ICANN a bit responsible for what those registrars do? After all, it is a
> regulated market...

Only to a limited degree.  Limited regulation doesn't give them carte
blanch to make them do whatever they demand.

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 20:11:50 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

At 11:58 9/04/02 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:

>ICANN is not a consumer protection body.  Yes, ICANN has lifted the lid on
>that Pandora's box and look at the mess that it has created as a result.
>
>ICANN needs to slam the lid back down, start doing what it ought to have
>been doing all along - technical coordination - and leave the issues of
>public policy to the bodies that were created for that purpose.

Karl,

You mean  ICANN has to do away with this whole idea of "ICANN accredited 
registrars"?

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 02:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: technizmo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

- --- William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Only to a limited degree.  Limited regulation
> doesn't give them carte
> blanch to make them do whatever they demand.

Currently, ICANN technically does have ultimate
authority on registrar conduct (as per sec.3.7.1 of
the accreditation agreement).  However, any action
taken must be supported by a consensus of already
accredited registrars.  That is what makes the
regulation limited.

- -Jason Graff

__________________________________________________
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: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 05:41:47 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

This is a good point and one that lays at the core of any regulation and
perhaps more so in this situation.

Blanket rules do not cover every circumstance.  Contract provisions do not
anticipate every contingency.

Protocols are essential but must have some elasticity, and the same is true
for regulation.

Innovation, even of a criminal sort, provides for constant testing and
re-evaluation platforms.

Theoretically a private group not as hampered with bureaucracy should be able
to more swiftly adapt guidelines to meet with new threats to stability.  This
group must be both a professional association and a forum for public input.
By established world treaties, it would appear that the group should be open
and transparent.

So it would seem that we in this forum should concentrate more on the
regulators than the regulations, although both are equally important.

Sincerely,
Eric

William X Walsh wrote:

> Tuesday, Tuesday, April 09, 2002, 8:26:45 PM, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
> > Why are there ICANN accredited registars? Does this mere fact not make
> > ICANN a bit responsible for what those registrars do? After all, it is a
> > regulated market...
>
> Only to a limited degree.  Limited regulation doesn't give them carte
> blanch to make them do whatever they demand.
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 06:01:24 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

Karl,

Here is where I must respectfully disagree.  We want the same outcome but we
have differing views on how to reach it.  We both agree that at this time ICANN
is making public policy decisions. We both agree that in its' current makeup it
should not be doing so.  What to do about it is where we diverge.

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> I agree.  ICANN has crept its mission well beyond its proper roles.
>
> ICANN is not a consumer protection body.  Yes, ICANN has lifted the lid on
> that Pandora's box and look at the mess that it has created as a result.
>

Agreed.  But now it may not just walk away from that box.  They are the ones who
opened it.  When the problems are your fault you have an obligation to try and
fix them.

>
> ICANN needs to slam the lid back down, start doing what it ought to have
> been doing all along - technical coordination - and leave the issues of
> public policy to the bodies that were created for that purpose.

Big problem here.  What bodies were created for that purpose.  Clearly they must
be international in scope and be open and transparent and bottom up.  Please
point me to those bodies.

>
> This is why there is such a gulf between the few paragraphs that I
> published as to ICANN's duties and what ICANN's staff published as it's
> telephone-book sized book of jobs it does.

Creep yes, but you can only creep into a void.

>
> Yes, it will be a mess to clean up the mess that ICANN has already
> created.  But let's not make it any worse by adding even more jobs for
> ICANN to do poorly.
>
>                 --karl--
>

Agreed, no new jobs.  But abandoning what it has already so greatly effected
would be irresponsible.
The only choices are repair or replace. (or maybe a little of both)

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: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:31:56 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] OECD Report

Marilyn,

I read with interest the OECD report 
http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00027000/M00027316.pdf that you posted to the WHOIS 
list, especially this particular conclusion:

<< The record in this case demonstrates that the Registrars's interest is to 
keep the cybersquatters as client for the volume of registration fees they 
generate and to avoid helping the victim -- which might lead the client to 
switch to a more protective registrar.  The system provides no incentive for 
the Registrar to exercise any degree of diligence or to help reduce the 
victim's period of losses or recovery costs, even when its contract gives it 
every ability to do so. >>

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

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

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 09:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Time to regulate the Re-Sellers

On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> >ICANN is not a consumer protection body.  Yes, ICANN has lifted the lid on
> >that Pandora's box and look at the mess that it has created as a result.
> >
> >ICANN needs to slam the lid back down, start doing what it ought to have
> >been doing all along - technical coordination - and leave the issues of
> >public policy to the bodies that were created for that purpose.
... 
> You mean  ICANN has to do away with this whole idea of "ICANN accredited 
> registrars"?

Yes, ICANN should not be accrediting *anyone*, not registrars and not TLD
registries, except to present an initial and yearly certificate from a
qualified auditor that:

   a) The registrar or registry adheres to industry standard protocols
      (However, there needs to be some flexibility built in here to allow
      for protocol experimentation and evolution by regi*s - [that's 
      pronounced "regi-stars"]

   b) The regi* engages in adequate business data protection practices
      that business failure or disaster will leave enough records and
      assets in usable form that another entity can resume operations
      or acquire assets.

		--karl--

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

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

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:25:51 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OECD Report

Danny, 

The thing is, a determination of 'cybersquatting' is really something no
one can make in advance. Its a question of facts on each individaul
case.  So I question any conclusions made from 'volume of registration
fees'. There is a reason the system has no incentive for diligence. As I
have reminded people since 1995, only the courts have the right to act
as courts. Any other actors (registries, registrars, resellers, etc.)
are simply not courts and have no business making judgement as to
whether any particular registration constitutes 'cybersquatting'
(acutally the UDRP does not even use the term cybersquatting).

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Marilyn,
> 
> I read with interest the OECD report
> http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00027000/M00027316.pdf that you posted to the WHOIS
> list, especially this particular conclusion:
> 
> << The record in this case demonstrates that the Registrars's interest is to
> keep the cybersquatters as client for the volume of registration fees they
> generate and to avoid helping the victim -- which might lead the client to
> switch to a more protective registrar.  The system provides no incentive for
> the Registrar to exercise any degree of diligence or to help reduce the
> victim's period of losses or recovery costs, even when its contract gives it
> every ability to do so. >>
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:17:45 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OECD Report

Further to that, the OECD statements makes statements concerning the whole
based on observations of the parts. As a result, the conclusion doesn't
hold, despite its base in a valid root observation.

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] OECD Report

> Danny,
>
> The thing is, a determination of 'cybersquatting' is really something no
> one can make in advance. Its a question of facts on each individaul
> case.  So I question any conclusions made from 'volume of registration
> fees'. There is a reason the system has no incentive for diligence. As I
> have reminded people since 1995, only the courts have the right to act
> as courts. Any other actors (registries, registrars, resellers, etc.)
> are simply not courts and have no business making judgement as to
> whether any particular registration constitutes 'cybersquatting'
> (acutally the UDRP does not even use the term cybersquatting).
>
> [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > Marilyn,
> >
> > I read with interest the OECD report
> > http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00027000/M00027316.pdf that you posted to the
WHOIS
> > list, especially this particular conclusion:
> >
> > << The record in this case demonstrates that the Registrars's interest
is to
> > keep the cybersquatters as client for the volume of registration fees
they
> > generate and to avoid helping the victim -- which might lead the client
to
> > switch to a more protective registrar.  The system provides no incentive
for
> > the Registrar to exercise any degree of diligence or to help reduce the
> > victim's period of losses or recovery costs, even when its contract
gives it
> > every ability to do so. >>
> >
> > --
> > 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: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:47:44 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN role in enforcing court orders in domain name disputes

What is the policy with regard to ICANN using its power to regulate
registrars to play a role in enforcing court orders?    I am interested in
this because of a dispute over CNNews.com, a Chinese news site.   The
registrar (Eastcom) is apparently in Hong Kong.  ICANN has recently written
the registrar, telling them to turn over the domain to Time-Warner's CNN
subsidiary.  There is a complicated legal dispute over whether or not the
Virginia court has jurisdiction over Eastcom, and even whether or not the
Virginia court has ordered Eastcom to do anything.  But CNN's lawyers wrote
the ICANN, who then wrote Eastcom, and say that Eastcom is obligated to
comply with the Virginia court order under terms of its accreditation
agreement.  Some of the correspondence on this is here.

http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/cnnews-icanncorrespondence2.pdf
http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/CNNEWS.pdf
http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/cnnews-fourthcircuitbrief.pdf

It does not appear as though CNN has taken steps to ask the Hong Kong courts
to enforce the Virginia court order, and it appears as though the Hong Kong
parties would resist.

Is there some policy guidance as to when ICANN should jump in and take
matters into its own hands to enforce one nation's court orders in a cross
border dispute over jurisdiction?  (There is no court order asking ICANN to
do anything).

See also Michael Giest's story below:

- ------------see also----------------------------------
BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 4/10/02

Compiled by Professor Michael Geist, BNA Consulting Editor.
To contact Professor Geist directly, please send e-mails to:
[email-masked]. For free subscription information, scroll
to the end of this e-mail.

DID ICANN TAKE SIDES IN CNNEWS.COM ACPA DISPUTE?
An interesting dispute is brewing over the cnnews.com case,
in which a Virginia court ordered the transfer of the domain
using the in rem provisions of the ACPA.  With the registrar
located in China, the Virginia court acknowledged it could
not create a binding order in China.  Although CNN took no
steps to enforce the judgement in China, ICANN apparently
stepped in at their request, forwarding a request to the
Chinese registrar asking that it "fulfill its
responsibilities."  In defending the ICANN communication,
ICANN counsel Louis Touton puzzlingly refers to the ICANN
UDRP, which would seem inapplicable here.  Full
correspondence trail at
http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/cnnews-icanncorrespondence2.pdf

- --------------------
James Love, mailto:[email-masked], http://www.cptech.org
voice +1.202.387.8030, mobile +1.202.361.3040, fax +1.202.234.5176

- --------------------
James Love, mailto:[email-masked], http://www.cptech.org
voice +1.202.387.8030, mobile +1.202.361.3040, fax +1.202.234.5176

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

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

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:23:06 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN role in enforcing court orders in domain name disputes

James,

I don't know what the policy is.

After visiting the website at CNnews.com I am absolutely convinced that it 
is not and has nothing to do with CNN.com.

This case is silly.  ICANN should not get involved other than to keep CNN 
from being permitted authority over the domain name of their competitor.

~k

- --
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, 11 Apr 2002 00:49:38 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Independent Review Panel?

It is well-known by now that, in the Lynn proposal, an independent
review panel is characterized as a "waste."

What do you folks think about this?

More specifically, with respect to ICANN policy-making, what 
mechanisms for review of board decisions should be installed, if 
any?  How should the individuals serving on such a panel be 
selected?  By whom?  What powers should they have?

Let me give some possible options:

 - Review mechanisms:

   * Ombudsman (or team) who may be used as an input channel to raise 
     public concern, combined with a wise board which takes this 
     kind of input into account.

   * Independent review panel which can overturn or stall decisions. 
     (Maybe including an option for a particular, limited kind of 
     board action which could in turn overturn a decision by the 
     review panel.  Require special permit from stakeholder 
     representatives [SO councils] to overturn decisions. ...)

   * Dept. of Commerce

   * European Commission.

   * The Board Does Not Make Mistakes.

 - How to select individuals (if internal review): Define quality 
   requirements, define maximum term on panel; both properties 
   depending on powers given. Then:

   * Nomination committee which is itself selected by board or 
     stakeholders.

   * Direct election by stakeholders.
   
   * Direct election by board.
   
   * Any combination of the above.
   
Any thoughts?  Any creative ideas?
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:17:11 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Independent Review Panel?

At 00:49 11/04/02 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>It is well-known by now that, in the Lynn proposal, an independent
>review panel is characterized as a "waste."
>
>What do you folks think about this?

The original proposals for an Independent Review Panel are good and they 
are a necessary component of  ICANN's structure as originally envisaged.
That they have not been implemented is a crying shame.

With due respect, Thomas, I think it is misguided to now start casting 
about  for watered-down alternatives.

The only idea that I like is that of an industry Ombudsman, but this office 
could be separate from ICANN altogether and should not be used for review 
of Board decisions.

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 13:03:42 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Independent Review Panel?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>
To: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Independent Review Panel?

> At 00:49 11/04/02 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >It is well-known by now that, in the Lynn proposal, an independent
> >review panel is characterized as a "waste."
> >
> >What do you folks think about this?
>
> The original proposals for an Independent Review Panel are good and they
> are a necessary component of  ICANN's structure as originally envisaged.
> That they have not been implemented is a crying shame.
>
> With due respect, Thomas, I think it is misguided to now start casting
> about  for watered-down alternatives.
>
> The only idea that I like is that of an industry Ombudsman, but this
office
> could be separate from ICANN altogether and should not be used for review
> of Board decisions.
>
 Agreed.
As a member of the IRAC , I can say this was one of the early successes of
ICANN - a policy worked out by an industry led group in transparent bottom
up style, passed to the board posted for public comment and approved by the
community.

What's gone wrong, while I and others have had our eyes elsewhere seems to
be the  implementation by means of a nominating committee. Nominating
committees  seem to be a problem in ICANN. I strongly suspect their
efficiency, in general, preferring a democratic process. Even if cumbersome,
its still better than anything yet invented.

The problem here to be fair, seems to rest with the SO' who appointed their
reps to this panel, but have not followed up. I am not aware of any dialogue
between, for eg our DNSO reps to this panel ( Scott Hemphill and Olivier
Iteanu) and the DNBSO constituencies.

Scott Hemphill was one of 3 panellists who forwarded a list of 9 names to
the Board, but no other members voted. Why not? Especially, why did our
other rep  (Olivier Iteanu) disagree with or not support/provide alternates
to  Mr Hemphill's slate of names???

Why was the public call for nominations only open for one month -June to
July, when the Northern hemisphere goes on holiday?

If we had some focus on the panel, and empanelled  a new group soon, would
the whole policy need review?

I urge the NC to take up the issue of our representation on the Panel, with
a view to fixing this aspect, and not throwing out the whole process because
of this failure.

Regards

- --
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, 11 Apr 2002 03:15:21 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Independent Review Panel?

On 2002-04-11 12:17:11 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:

>With due respect, Thomas, I think it is misguided to now start 
>casting about for watered-down alternatives.

That's certainly not what I'm trying to do.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 03:45:45 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Independent Review Panel?

Hello Joop,

At 11.04.2002 12:17, you wrote:
>At 00:49 11/04/02 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>>It is well-known by now that, in the Lynn proposal, an independent
>>review panel is characterized as a "waste."
>>
>>What do you folks think about this?
>
>The original proposals for an Independent Review Panel are good and they are a necessary component of  ICANN's structure as originally envisaged.
>That they have not been implemented is a crying shame.
>
>With due respect, Thomas, I think it is misguided to now start casting about  for watered-down alternatives.

I don't think Thomas is the one who is casting about for
watered-down alternatives (which you probably didn't intend 
to say, but it sounds like it) -- he's certainly not the 
one who called it a waste. He is asking for opinions and 
ideas of GA members which he can in turn present e.g. to 
the NC and Board.

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: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 21:03:56 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] It is a turning point

Very clearly the time has come to point our attention on whether or not
there will be a viable AL.

Without it there is no need to continue.

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: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:53:18 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf. minutes April 4, 2002

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

ICANN/DNSO

          DNSO Names Council Teleconference 4 April 2002 - minutes

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

4 April 2002.

Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020404.NCteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:

Peter de Blanc         ccTLD
Elisabeth Porteneuve   ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay     ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Peter de Blanc or
Elisabeth Porteneuve

Philip Sheppard        Business
Marilyn Cade           Business
Grant Forsyth          Business
Greg Ruth              ISPCP
Antonio Harris         ISPCP
Tony Holmes            ISPCP
Philipp Grabensee      Registrars
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars
Roger Cochetti         gTLD
Richard Tindal         gTLD
Cary Karp              gTLD
Ellen Shankman         IP
Laurence Djolakian     IP  absent, apologies
J. Scott Evans         IP
Harold Feld            NCDNH  absent, apologies
Chun Eung Hwi          NCDNH  absent, apologies
Erick Iriate           NCDNH

17 Names Council Members

Thomas Roessler        invited as GA Chair
Alexander Svensson     invited as GA Alternate Chair

Glen de Saint Géry     NC Secretary
Philippe Renaut        MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat

MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020404.NCteleconf.mp3

Quorum present at 15:10 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during
summer time in the northern hemisphere.

Philip Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference.

Approval of the Agenda
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020404.NCteleconf-agenda.html
Philip Sheppard proposed that the main task of the call was to go through
the list of previously identified topics and find areas of common agreement.

First there was a short discussion on the draft conclusions drawn from the
first discussion.
Comments on the draft version 4
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00042.html

Recommendations for change were:

- - mission: delete ICANN staff definition, add NC proposal (J Scott Evans /
Cary Carp)

- - mission creep: Delete "danger, add  "potential"; add "additional" to
"security and consumer protection";

- - point in time: add a comment to recognise that ICANN's functions may
change over time. Reflect this in the recommendation.

- - ccTLD: change "such as" description in point 3 to that recommended by
Elizabeth Porteneuve

Agenda item 1. Funding

Short Term financing:
Ph. Sheppard explained that due to the immediate funding crisis, this item
has been broken down into short and long term funding. Purpose of looking at
the short term funding is to see what the Names Council can contribute to
stabilizing ICANN in the short term so that it is not distracted from day to
day work by fund raising.

Marilyn Cade reported that participation in public outreach meetings by the
Department of Commerce led to the current understanding that up to the night
before last, the Regional IP Registries (RIRs) were refusing to pay the 1.4
million dollars owing for 1999, 2000, 2001. Because also certain ccTLDs had
not contributed as expected in the ICANN budget, this has meant that ICANN
has a significant shortfall and has left them with very low operating
capital.  The RIRs were reported to have just agreed to pay 50% of the 1.4
million dollars which will bring some relief to the situation.

Roger Cochetti explained that the shortfall for the last two years is based
on numbering registries and ccTLDs related to the contract relations on both
sides. Evidence of this is that the Numbering registries put the full amount
owing to ICANN into escrow.

It was agreed that the NC should urge the funding parties to reach agreement
quickly to resolve this short term problem.

Long term financing:

Ph. Sheppard explained that this means the stable and ongoing funding for
ICANN.

Roger Cochetti proposed that outside of the main source of income to ICANN
currently via Registrars and Registries, there is a potential for other
source of funds which includes:
- - revenue from new ccTLD applications,
- - solicitations for donations
- - meeting fees.

Bruce Tonkin explained that today there is a fixed and a variable component
in the Registrar pricing structure. The variable component is related to the
volume of names registered.  He proposed that there should be a separation
of ICANN functions, their respective budgets and a separation of chargeable
services and remaining activities.  The Registrars are willing to increase
the amount given to ICANN. They recognise that the increase would be used to
deal with day to day issues, not so much for additional services, but for
more efficiency. This could even potentially lead to cost reductions for
Registrars. Registrars and Registries view money paid to ICANN as operating
expenses. They believed that this should not be looked upon as the custodian
of the Registrant's money, but that they pay a fee for Registrar and
Registry services. There was not agreement on this last point.

Marilyn Cade informed the group that the during the Accra meetings the
Business Constituency had proposed that the stable funding of ICANN should
come from an agreed part of the Registrant domain name fee. This user fee
could be administered by the Registrars. Models of such a mechanism exist in
areas such as the self-regulation of advertising.

Ken Stubbs calculated that such a user fee would be small. Assuming an ICANN
budget of USD10 million and 40 million names, implies a fee of just US 25
cents.

Elisabeth Porteneuve drew attention to the fact that ccTLDs and gTLDs do not
operate in the same framework, are quite different and cannot be compared.
Thus any services from a more efficient ICANN is going to have less impact
on a ccTLD than on a gTLD.

It was proposed that a distinction should be made between ccTLDs that are
operating based on their geographic origin and those that are marketed as
gTLDs.

Ph. Sheppard made the following conclusions on which there was general
agreement.
1. Without going into the mechanism of how it flows the revenue stream in
the Registry, Registrar, Registrant system, which is mostly derived from
gTLDs should provide ICANN core funding.

2. In addition there was potential for secondary and supplementary sources
of funds including the cctlds, voluntary contributions and fees for specific
services.

3. Budgeting should be based on certainty and specific functions but there
should be no cherry-picking of services leaving other important ICANN
functions under-funded.

4. With the exception of meeting or secretariat fees, revenues for ICANN
should not come from governments.

Agenda item 2. Advisory Bodies

Ph. Sheppard introduced this saying that one major difference in the Lynn
proposal and the present situation, is the link with the constituencies.
Today constituencies elect the NC and the NC seeks policy consensus and
elects some board members. This direct link in participation is broken in
the proposed system.

Thomas Roessler proposed an improved way of policy development with a task
force structure:
- -involve different constituencies and other groups as needed
- - coordination by an independent, qualified, professional, neutral staff
person who would be responsible for written reports and strict timelines.

Ph. Sheppard asked for the Names Council view on the difference between the
process today, which is a bottom-up, binding consultation process, to the
Lynn model proposal which is an advisory consultation body.

The views expressed:
- - significant improvement can be made to the existing process
- - there was no support  for an advisory body only.
- - a Board should have power to act on its own in certain situations. Process
debates today would diminish is this reality were recognised in the current
process. A supermajority requirement would be a way forward.
- - the Board should have an oversight role to see the process is applied but
should not be able to create policy without the SOs.

Conclusion:
There is broad agreement among the Names Council members that the existing
model is the right one, but that there is room for improvement. The Task
Force model for policy building is also desirable and would be improved
greatly with dedicated staff support.

The Names Council continues to endorse the ccTLDs desire to form its own
Supporting Organisation and still favours a separate ccTLD organisation in
whatever new ICANN there is.

In closing Thomas Roessler requested the Chair draft a set of consensus
recommendations by the next call. The Chair agreed.

The teleconference ended at 17:10

Next NC teleconference will be held on Thursday 18 April at 15:00 Paris
time, UTC 14:00 and focus on Board Composition and participation.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

- --
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 #1123
*************************