Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1124
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, April 11 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1124

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 13:39:53 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN role in enforcing court orders in domain name disputes

On 2002-04-10 15:47:44 -0400, James Love wrote:

>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).

I seem to understand that paragraph 3(b) of the UDRP is believed to 
be applicable.  Maybe Dan Steinberg, who represents the GA on the 
UDRP task force, can shed some more light onto this.

- -- 
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 15:19:51 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Evolution - GA

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0146_01C1E16C.532A8E60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thomas, thanks for posing some excellent questions. I urge Council to =
respond.  Let me add a personal reflection (not as NC, not as BC)  on =
the relationship NC/GA, and hence the role of the GA in policy making.

Objective Establishing coherence in the DNSO.
Assumptions (the world as it should be and may have been envisaged in =
the current by-laws)
All relevant and significant stakeholders should have the possibility of =
representation in a constituency.
The GA is the rallying point for all constituencies.
Therefore a logical conclusion is that,
- - The GA mail list and the constituency liaison list should be one and =
the same.
- - the GA chair and the NC chair should be one and the same.

Why has this not happened?
The GA mail list became a public chat list of a public who were either,=20
A. stakeholders that were or could be represented by the constituencies
or B. others who felt they were not represented by the constituencies =
(notably individual name holders who were not businesses or =
non-commercial organisations).

Solution
If the groups in B are relevant and significant stakeholders, get them =
to form a constituency and participate in the NC.=20
Problem - self-organisation and representation have proved challenges =
for individual domain name holders. So, use the at-large structure to =
provide this organisation and to elect its NC reps.

Then, get all constituencies via their NC reps to vote for the DNSO =
chair, who simultaneously chairs the NC and GA. (I float this idea safe =
in the knowledge it won't be me.) Thoughts?
Philip

- ------=_NextPart_000_0146_01C1E16C.532A8E60
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Thomas, thanks for posing some excellent questions. =
I urge=20
Council to respond.&nbsp; Let me add a personal reflection (not as NC, =
not as=20
BC) &nbsp;on the relationship NC/GA, and hence the role of the GA in =
policy=20
making.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><STRONG>Objective</STRONG> Establishing coherence in =
the=20
DNSO.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><STRONG>Assumptions</STRONG> (the world as it should =
be and=20
may have been envisaged in the current by-laws)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>All relevant and significant stakeholders should =
have the=20
possibility of representation in a constituency.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The GA&nbsp;is the&nbsp;rallying point for all=20
constituencies.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Therefore a logical conclusion is that,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>- The GA mail list and the&nbsp;constituency liaison =
list=20
should be&nbsp;one and the same.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>- the GA chair and the NC chair should be one and =
the=20
same.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><STRONG>Why has this not =
happened?</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The GA mail list became a public chat list of a =
public who=20
were either, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>A. stakeholders that were or could be represented by =
the=20
constituencies</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>or B.&nbsp;others who felt they were not represented =
by the=20
constituencies (notably individual name holders&nbsp;who were not =
businesses or=20
non-commercial organisations).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><STRONG>Solution</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>If the groups in B are relevant and significant =
stakeholders,=20
get them to form a constituency and participate in the NC. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Problem - self-organisation and representation have =
proved=20
challenges for individual domain name holders. So, use the at-large =
structure to=20
provide this organisation and to elect its NC reps.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Then, get all constituencies via their NC =
reps&nbsp;to vote=20
for the DNSO chair, who simultaneously chairs the NC and GA. (I float =
this idea=20
safe in the knowledge it won't be me.) </FONT><FONT=20
size=3D2>Thoughts?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0146_01C1E16C.532A8E60--

- --
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 14:28:53 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Evolution - GA

Philip,

First of all, I agree with your assumption.

>Assumptions (the world as it should be and may have been envisaged in the 
>current by-laws)
>All relevant and significant stakeholders should have the possibility of 
>representation in a constituency.

This should be the first point to be fixed, independently from what the GA 
is or should become.
Since the Individual Domain Name Holders are beyond any reasonable doubt a 
significant stakeholder, the opposition by NC to create this long due 
constituency in unexplainable to me.

>The GA is the rallying point for all constituencies.
>Therefore a logical conclusion is that,
>- The GA mail list and the constituency liaison list should be one and the 
>same.
>- the GA chair and the NC chair should be one and the same.

I have doubts about this.
First of all, the GA should also be an open forum, hence not restricted in 
principle, although one would expect that the core would be built around the 
participants in the constituencies.
But I can clearly see that, unless we build an "everybody else" 
constituency, there will always be the chance of having somebody that is not 
member of a constituency that subscribes to contribute. Think, for instance, 
at some people in the PSO or ASO who want to occasionally participate.
So the GA will include all constituencies, but not limited to.

Secondly, the logic of the representativity in the GA is "one individual - 
one voice", which is different from the NC/constituencies. Therefore one 
would expect a fairly different participation, the potential creation of a 
different majority on issues, all things that might express the willingness 
for a different representation. In other words, the NC Chair should have the 
consensus, or at least the majority, of the 21 (to be 24, as we agreed 
above) NC representatives from the constituencies, the GA Chair should have 
the consensus, or at least the majority, of the hundreds of individuals, 
that are unlikely to be distributed as the NC reps.

Last point, is about the use of AtLarge as a "GA succedaneum", as an "eighth 
constituency". I disagree with this for two reasons:
1. the AtLarge should include individuals that have an interest of any type 
in ICANN, but not nwecessarily in the DNSO;
2. this "catch all" will be unmanageable as a constituency, because it will 
fail to have what all other DNSO constituencies have, i.e. a "core business" 
(in the wide sense) in the DNSO. This 8th constituency, in  other words, 
will still fail to represent the Individual Domain Name Holders, because it 
would not be representative of their interests (it might in fact not being 
even composed by a majority of individuals in this condition).

So, while we agree on the assumptions, IMHO these assumptions lead to one of 
the two solutions:
1. dynamically correct the constituency structure with a mechanism to 
add/delete/modify the number of constituencies when needed (remember the 
"Paris Draft"?)
2. get rid altogether of the constituency structure and replace it with a GA 
type structure (Karl Auerbach's solution, identifiable to a certain extent 
with the BWG draft).

Of course, in case 2. the NC Chair can easily be the GA Chair.

Best regards
Roberto

>
>Why has this not happened?
>The GA mail list became a public chat list of a public who were either,
>A. stakeholders that were or could be represented by the constituencies
>or B. others who felt they were not represented by the constituencies 
>(notably individual name holders who were not businesses or non-commercial 
>organisations).
>
>Solution
>If the groups in B are relevant and significant stakeholders, get them to 
>form a constituency and participate in the NC.
>Problem - self-organisation and representation have proved challenges for 
>individual domain name holders. So, use the at-large structure to provide 
>this organisation and to elect its NC reps.
>
>Then, get all constituencies via their NC reps to vote for the DNSO chair, 
>who simultaneously chairs the NC and GA. (I float this idea safe in the 
>knowledge it won't be me.) Thoughts?
>Philip
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

- --
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 07:45:26 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN role in enforcing court orders in domain name disputes

This really should not be looked at in a singular fashion.

Court orders are equal with a law.  All citizens and Corporations should
comply with such as long as the do not conflict with other law or order, or
sound moral conviction.  But very few laws or orders require us to act they
simply require us to restrain from acting.  A positive injunction requiring
that a third party, not privy to an original lawsuit, to act is quite rare
and seldom appropriate. In fact generally jurisdictional issues prohibit
such an order.

Therefor it is easy to conclude that when ICANN acts in such matters it
does so for reasons other than compliance with the law.  There is no court
order requiring ICANN to act in this matter.

So why have they acted at all?  Out of good or bad motive?  Out of an
attempt to side with a big media player against a smaller one in order to
curry favor?  This is a good test of morality.  Do what is right - nothing,
or do what is expedient and self serving?

Easy for me to answer but it must be hard for Louis, Andrew and Start.

Sincerely,
Eric

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-04-10 15:47:44 -0400, James Love wrote:
>
> >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).
>
> I seem to understand that paragraph 3(b) of the UDRP is believed to
> be applicable.  Maybe Dan Steinberg, who represents the GA on the
> UDRP task force, can shed some more light onto this.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:48:34 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Evolution - GA

At 11.04.2002 15:19, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>The GA mail list became a public chat list of a public who were either, 
>A. stakeholders that were or could be represented by the constituencies
>or B. others who felt they were not represented by the constituencies (notably individual name holders who were not businesses or non-commercial organisations).
> 
>Solution
>If the groups in B are relevant and significant stakeholders, get them to form a constituency and participate in the NC. 
>Problem - self-organisation and representation have proved challenges for individual domain name holders. So, use the at-large structure to provide this organisation and to elect its NC reps.

There are certain shared characteristics between
GA and At Large and individual gTLD registrants, but 
also differences. 

In the layers at http://www.icannchannel.de/skeleton03.pdf,
there is a difference between policy development,
policy input and policy oversight.

gTLD registries/registrars and gTLD registrants
belong to the *core* gTLD community who have a natural 
right to a central role in gTLD policy development.
(The same obviously applies to ccTLD registries/registrars
and ccTLD registrants in the ccTLD community.)
The main role for the ICANN At Large is providing policy 
input to the process and taking part in the policy oversight. 

So, in response to Philip's proposal:
- -- Yes, I agree that individual gTLD registrants must have 
   a recognized place in gTLD policy development (and I
   share Philip's view that the GA has suffered from
   being forced to become a mixture between the originally
   envisaged focus point for everyone and a pseudo-
   constituency trying to protect individual registrants'
   interests), but
- -- no, I think the Internet community at large is not well 
   suited to be that component, since it consists not only 
   of domain holders, let alone gTLD registrants. (In addition, 
   it will be organized on a regional basis, if you follow the 
   ALSC recommendations.)

Nevertheless, I prefer proposals (even when I disagree)
to complete silence. 

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: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 07:55:26 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Evolution - GA

- --------------DEBB933E713999C1062E9936
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

You Sir, have a damned fine point here!  Call in the lawyers and
accountants to work out the details.
Eric

Philip Sheppard wrote:

>  - the GA chair and the NC chair should be one and the same.

- --------------DEBB933E713999C1062E9936
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
You Sir, have a damned fine point here!&nbsp; Call in the lawyers and accountants
to work out the details.
<br>Eric
<p>Philip Sheppard wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><font size=-1></font>&nbsp;<font size=-1>- the GA
chair and the NC chair should be one and the same.</font>&nbsp;</blockquote>

</body>
</html>

- --------------DEBB933E713999C1062E9936--

- --
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 11:02:30 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN role in enforcing court orders in domain name disputes

ummmmmmmm, I am not ICANN's counsel so I do not speak for them.

But it seems to me that we have to be careful about exactly what we are
talking about. There is a big difference between someone acting 'in
authority' because they have to or because they want to...and someone
acting 'to influence'...

Speaking in very general terms, there is a broad range of possibilities
for organizations to act in the world. (now, is that a generalization or
what?).  What this means (and we have seen examples earlier this week)
is that it is possible to get cases where an entity is not obliged to
act, nor are they specifically precluded from acting.

Just because someone 'can' do something doesn't always mean that they
have to. Similarly, just because someone is not 'obliged' to do
something doesn't preclude them from doing it sometimes on a
case-by-case basis providing they 'can' in the first place.

Now thats what is supposed to happen. Of course, actual mileage may vary
and you may feel that an entity is either going too far or going not far
enough.   

Speaking completely hypothetically, if you feel someone has done
something in an abuse of authority or power, the most drastic step is
for someone with 'standing' to go to court seeking immediate relief. 
Down a notch on the urgency meter, the next one is seeking damages and
preventing them from doing it a gain. Down another notch is getting them
to 'dont do it again!' Down further on the urgency scale is 'well...next
time you are up for renewal of your position, lets replace you'...

Going back to the almost-specific from the general, what is referred to
as 'taking matters into its own hands' is something called exercising
judgement. When you have policy guidance or procedures, then it becomes
a somewhat clerical or admin function.

Getting even closer, I have to remind that the UDRP is a procedure that
is binding on registrants via contract (you cant have a domain unless
you agree to either submit to UDRP or go to court). So any UDRP decision
is in itself not binding on any court, not like ACPA would be on the
applicable US courts.

This does get a bit complicated sometimes, and its hard enough to figure
out what 'has' to be done with out worrying about what 'might' be ok or
might be too much.

But (finally) getting down to specifics... the wording of 3b seems to
say...that the 'registrar' will.... "cancel, transfer or otherwise make
changes to domain name registrations under
    the following circumstances: b. our receipt of an order from a court
or arbitral tribunal, in each case of competent jurisdiction, requiring
such action;"

That paragraph governs the actions of the registrar and not ICANN.

Given that apparently 3b does not oblige ICANN to intervene, we must ask
does it mean that ICANN cannot or should not intervene? or does it fall
under general discretionary authority?  that is where all the general
statements come in.

Re-reading my post, I fear I have failed to shed light on the subject
and risk confusing even more.

Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 
> On 2002-04-10 15:47:44 -0400, James Love wrote:
> 
> >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).
> 
> I seem to understand that paragraph 3(b) of the UDRP is believed to
> be applicable.  Maybe Dan Steinberg, who represents the GA on the
> UDRP task force, can shed some more light onto this.
> 
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:13:42 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Evolution - GA

I appreciate this discussion very much and think it very useful. 

I am not supportive of making the chair of the NC the chair of the GA. I will note only one reason for now, which is the work load. :-) 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 10:29 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Evolution - GA

Philip,

First of all, I agree with your assumption.

>Assumptions (the world as it should be and may have been envisaged in the 
>current by-laws)
>All relevant and significant stakeholders should have the possibility of 
>representation in a constituency.

This should be the first point to be fixed, independently from what the GA 
is or should become.
Since the Individual Domain Name Holders are beyond any reasonable doubt a 
significant stakeholder, the opposition by NC to create this long due 
constituency in unexplainable to me.

>The GA is the rallying point for all constituencies.
>Therefore a logical conclusion is that,
>- The GA mail list and the constituency liaison list should be one and the 
>same.
>- the GA chair and the NC chair should be one and the same.

I have doubts about this.
First of all, the GA should also be an open forum, hence not restricted in 
principle, although one would expect that the core would be built around the 
participants in the constituencies.
But I can clearly see that, unless we build an "everybody else" 
constituency, there will always be the chance of having somebody that is not 
member of a constituency that subscribes to contribute. Think, for instance, 
at some people in the PSO or ASO who want to occasionally participate.
So the GA will include all constituencies, but not limited to.

Secondly, the logic of the representativity in the GA is "one individual - 
one voice", which is different from the NC/constituencies. Therefore one 
would expect a fairly different participation, the potential creation of a 
different majority on issues, all things that might express the willingness 
for a different representation. In other words, the NC Chair should have the 
consensus, or at least the majority, of the 21 (to be 24, as we agreed 
above) NC representatives from the constituencies, the GA Chair should have 
the consensus, or at least the majority, of the hundreds of individuals, 
that are unlikely to be distributed as the NC reps.

Last point, is about the use of AtLarge as a "GA succedaneum", as an "eighth 
constituency". I disagree with this for two reasons:
1. the AtLarge should include individuals that have an interest of any type 
in ICANN, but not nwecessarily in the DNSO;
2. this "catch all" will be unmanageable as a constituency, because it will 
fail to have what all other DNSO constituencies have, i.e. a "core business" 
(in the wide sense) in the DNSO. This 8th constituency, in  other words, 
will still fail to represent the Individual Domain Name Holders, because it 
would not be representative of their interests (it might in fact not being 
even composed by a majority of individuals in this condition).

So, while we agree on the assumptions, IMHO these assumptions lead to one of 
the two solutions:
1. dynamically correct the constituency structure with a mechanism to 
add/delete/modify the number of constituencies when needed (remember the 
"Paris Draft"?)
2. get rid altogether of the constituency structure and replace it with a GA 
type structure (Karl Auerbach's solution, identifiable to a certain extent 
with the BWG draft).

Of course, in case 2. the NC Chair can easily be the GA Chair.

Best regards
Roberto

>
>Why has this not happened?
>The GA mail list became a public chat list of a public who were either,
>A. stakeholders that were or could be represented by the constituencies
>or B. others who felt they were not represented by the constituencies 
>(notably individual name holders who were not businesses or non-commercial 
>organisations).
>
>Solution
>If the groups in B are relevant and significant stakeholders, get them to 
>form a constituency and participate in the NC.
>Problem - self-organisation and representation have proved challenges for 
>individual domain name holders. So, use the at-large structure to provide 
>this organisation and to elect its NC reps.
>
>Then, get all constituencies via their NC reps to vote for the DNSO chair, 
>who simultaneously chairs the NC and GA. (I float this idea safe in the 
>knowledge it won't be me.) Thoughts?
>Philip
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:41:23 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Pulling the plug on the Council

Thomas in his recent letter to the NC asks:  <<What, precisely should the 
council's role be? >>

This question presumes that there will be an ongoing role for the Names 
Council in ICANN.  I question that assessment.  The Lynn Plan makes it clear 
that ICANN has come to the conclusion that the Council is of such limited 
value that the DNSO itself should be eliminated in the "evolved" ICANN.  

I share this conclusion.  Let's consider the facts... most of us recognize 
that change is needed, and we have had a Council that has purportedly looked 
at reform issues through the review process.  We have had a Review Working 
Group, two separate Review Task Forces, and a Structure Task Force... and yet 
what did the Council ultimately conclude?  Their final Review Report 
indicated that no substantive reform was required, and that everything was 
just wonderful within the DNSO.

This Council is a body with no desire to reform.  It is an organization that 
has stonewalled every concerted effort made to enhance representation and 
participation.  You will recall that the GA voted on and passed a proposal 
calling for the DNSO to be converted into a bicameral body.  We took the 
issue of reform and evolution seriously, and acted to make our displeasure 
known.... but as was to be expected, this Council responded by steadfastly 
refusing to even initiate discussions on the GA proposal.  

As far as I'm concerned, the Council has had their day in the sun, and it is 
now time to pull the plug on a failed experiment.  Any organization that 
refuses to reform must be discarded on the trashheap of history.  

- --
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 11:59:08 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Evolution - GA

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

>I appreciate this discussion very much and think it very useful. 
>
>I am not supportive of making the chair of the NC the chair of the GA. I will note only one reason for now, which is the work load. :-) 
>
Nowthat's a load!  What workload exactly?  What work is being done?

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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 12:02:30 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Rats deserting the ship...

Here we have a summation from the woman who basically put ICANN on it's 
current path into obsolescence:

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/articles.cfm?catid=9&articleid=542&homepage=yes

Seems even the bilge rats are abandoning ship.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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 12:27:25 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Rats deserting the ship...

>
> Seems even the bilge rats are abandoning ship.

Sounds more like a pragmatic, reality based assessment of the situation.
Hardly an indictment.

- -rwr

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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:38:41 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Evolution - GA

Roberto writes:

<< IMHO these assumptions lead to one of the two solutions:
 1. dynamically correct the constituency structure with a mechanism to 
add/delete/modify the number of constituencies when needed (remember the 
"Paris Draft"?)
 2. get rid altogether of the constituency structure and replace it with a GA 
type structure (Karl Auerbach's solution, identifiable to a certain extent 
with the BWG draft). >>

What Roberto is stating is precisely the same set of conclusions arrived at 
by the Review Working Group over one year ago.  

In that time, we have seen the Council actively and continuously oppose the 
creation of an Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency.  As the Council 
will not proactively adopt a mechanism to add/delete/modify the number of 
constituencies, and will not even discuss other reform proposals that would 
upset the balance of power enjoyed by certain special interest groups, we now 
have only choice number two as our remaining option -- getting rid of the 
Council constituency structure altogether.  

- --
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 13:00:12 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Rats deserting the ship...

Ross et al.,

Let us not for a moment lose sight of the fact that Esther Dyson is one 
of the people responsible for what ails ICANN today.  

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

>>Seems even the bilge rats are abandoning ship.
>>
>
>Sounds more like a pragmatic, reality based assessment of the situation.
>Hardly an indictment.
>
>-rwr
>
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 13:12:11 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Rats deserting the ship...

Completely disagree - even if the blame-game was remotely productive, that
honor would fall at the feet of many others before her turn came up.

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "ga" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Rats deserting the ship...

> Ross et al.,
>
> Let us not for a moment lose sight of the fact that Esther Dyson is one
> of the people responsible for what ails ICANN today.
>
> Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>
> >>Seems even the bilge rats are abandoning ship.
> >>
> >
> >Sounds more like a pragmatic, reality based assessment of the situation.
> >Hardly an indictment.
> >
> >-rwr
> >
> >
>
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 13:53:08 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN role in enforcing court orders in domain name disputes

In the case of the CNNews.com litigation, there was *no* UDRP proceeding.
ICANN is telling the registrar to do something in a case where there is a
cross border legal dispute over jurisdiction.   Is it the policy of ICANN to
help US courts enforce cross border judgments against non-US registrars, or
to help *any* court enforce *any* judgment againts *any* registrar?   Noting
here that ICANN has not been asked by any court to do anything, but acted
after a request from Time Warner.

Jamie

- --
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 13:09:01 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN role in enforcing court orders in domain name disputes

At 1:53 PM -0400 4/11/02, James Love wrote:
>In the case of the CNNews.com litigation, there was *no* UDRP proceeding.
>ICANN is telling the registrar to do something in a case where there is a
>cross border legal dispute over jurisdiction.   Is it the policy of ICANN to
>help US courts enforce cross border judgments against non-US registrars, or
>to help *any* court enforce *any* judgment againts *any* registrar?   Noting
>here that ICANN has not been asked by any court to do anything, but acted
>after a request from Time Warner.

What's in it for ICANN? They don't usually move a muscle unless there's a
"donation" involved.

Are there any links between ICANN officers/Jones Day and Time Warner?

Someone's Daddy on a board somewhere?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:17:19 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN role in enforcing court orders in domain name disputes

Exactly my point!

ICANN is free to do what it wants to suggest outcomes. Just as I am free
to pick up the phone and/or e-mail and make suggestions.  Is there any
evidence that ICANN is 'ordering' the registrar to do something?

James Love wrote:
> 
> In the case of the CNNews.com litigation, there was *no* UDRP proceeding.
> ICANN is telling the registrar to do something in a case where there is a
> cross border legal dispute over jurisdiction.   Is it the policy of ICANN to
> help US courts enforce cross border judgments against non-US registrars, or
> to help *any* court enforce *any* judgment againts *any* registrar?   Noting
> here that ICANN has not been asked by any court to do anything, but acted
> after a request from Time Warner.
> 
> Jamie
- --
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 11:29:10 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Evolution - GA

On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 02:28:53PM +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
[...]

>So, while we agree on the assumptions, IMHO these assumptions lead to one of 
> the two solutions:
> 1. dynamically correct the constituency structure with a mechanism to 
> add/delete/modify the number of constituencies when needed (remember the 
> "Paris Draft"?)
>2. get rid altogether of the constituency structure and replace it with a GA 
> type structure (Karl Auerbach's solution, identifiable to a certain extent 
> with the BWG draft).

There is a third solution: create a constituency with the characteristic
that it has completely open individual membership -- any natural person,
with no restrictions to domain name registrants or anything else.  Such
a constituency has the property of providing "representational
closure", and removes, therefore, any requirement of creating more 
constituencies.

Kent
- --
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 #1124
*************************