Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1125
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, April 12 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1125

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 15:44:10 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Evolution - GA

Why would identity verification problems be any different for this proposed
new all encompassing DNSO constituency? Or has the basis for the ALSC
recommendation to deny all but domain name registrants from membership of
the At Large suddenly evaporated for some reason I am missing?

Regards,
Joanna
- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kent
Crispin
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 2:29 PM
To: [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

- --
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 23:42:54 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Pulling the plug on the Council

On 2002-04-11 11:41:23 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

>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...

I believe that the council, as an institution, is currently in its
end game, along with the rest of the DNSO concept.  (But you knew 
that already.)

If the council actually delivers on its promise and produces an 
intelligent, useful, and practicable alternative to the Lynn plan, 
then it would have proven that it can work kind of "effectively," 
and may deserve another chance.

If, however, the council does not deliver (for whatever reason), the 
current DNSO concept has proven beyond all doubt that it is not 
useful, and not usable.  In this case, the council's plug should 
indeed be pulled, and it should be replaced by something _radically_ 
different.

I would guess that any work product which does not identify and 
address the problems with the DNSO's current process would be 
considered a failure.  Any work product which just says 
"everything's almost fine" would most likely be a failure.

In particular, this implies that those who represent the DNSO's 
constituencies on the council will have to invest a lot of time and 
dedication over the next 28 days.  With most of the council's 
members, this will have to be a huge lot more time and dedication 
than what we have seen since Accra.

This will also require the council's members (and, in fact, all in 
the DNSO) to be open-minded about conceding what has gone wrong in 
the past.  To use my favorite example, whoever criticizes the board 
for its decision on dot-org should as well look at the process used 
in the DNSO to come to the much-celebrated consensus on that issue, 
and should ask if this process was appropriate, and if the consensus 
really covered all those concerned by the decision.

Anyway, I'm speculating.  It may also be the case that this is all 
just the fight for having the best deck chairs on the Titanic, as 
Milton has been suggesting on the NCDNHC's list.

- -- 
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 16:57:54 -0500
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Open Letter to Mr Jeff Neuman from The Internet Challenge

The following was posted on our Website this afternoon:

Statement from Jeffrey J. Neuman
Director, Policy and Intellectual Property
April 11, 2002

NeuLevel, Inc., today announced that it has placed on "registry hold" some
.BIZ domain names that were recently awarded in the Round-Robin Process for
the "Group 2B" domain names. This action was taken in cooperation with the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and in response
to potentially abusive domain name registration practices. NeuLevel is also
analyzing whether these names were registered in violation of its
restrictions document, which can be found at
http://www.neulevel.biz/ardp/index.html. NeuLevel intends to work with ICANN
and the .BIZ Registrars to complete its investigation and provide
recommendations on further action by early May. 

NeuLevel remains committed to preserving the integrity of the .BIZ domain
name space, the world's first and only Internet domain established to meet
the unique needs of businesses. We appreciate your cooperation and patience
in this matter.

END OF STATEMENT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FYI:  Please note that domains placed on "Registry Hold" are removed from
the Zone File, cannot be deleted or transferred, and no updates to domain
records can be made. 

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 00:05:56 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Pulling the plug on the Council

On 2002-04-11 23:42:54 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>In particular, this implies that those who represent the DNSO's 
>constituencies on the council will have to invest a lot of time 
>and dedication over the next 28 days.

Errrrm, it's late.  18 days.

- -- 
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 20:04:05 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] pull the plug/ I don't think so!

Very nice analysis TR.  Danny that was a little bit of your personal
frustration showing.

Is the system broke or are the people who run it morally bankrupt?

What ever system we develop will be at the hands of those we elect to
handle it.

The Catholic church stands on the highest principles but those who run
it often fall afoul of good conduct.

We must meet the criteria of engineers yet we deal in human complexity
and failure.

Let us take a deep breath and when people like Esther, Phillip and
Marylin admit to some fault of their own system, let us take pause and
bring them within ranks and develop, not condemn.

Failure from the top and frustration from the bottom are reaching a
mutual reality that can help all of us.
In our sameness we find a ground that will help us build a foundation.
We can all find satisfaction in trying and in sharing our mutual desires
for a common consensus of a better Internet.

We are so young let us grow together, we have forever to perfect what we
do.

Sincerely,
LEM
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: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:12:27 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Evolution - GA

- --=====================_4023058==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Derar Philip,
Bravo for opening the floor on this matter with good questions. However 
some remarks:
On 15:19 11/04/02, Philip Sheppard said:
>Problem - self-organisation and representation have proved challenges for 
>individual domain name holders.

There was no problem per se. There was a centralized vision ported by Joop 
Teernstra also a good promoter of the cause. The need is real. The vision 
IMO is wrong, and at least shown itself sterile. Both at the IDNO and at 
the icannatlarge.com. But you cannot correct the errors if you don't try.

>So, use the at-large structure to provide this organisation and to elect 
>its NC reps.

This is the Denis Jennings compromise which founded the DNSO as a failure 
(as Joe SImis testified) unbalanced witgh the ASO and PSO. The @large are 
the most active among the real owners of the Internet. The ICANN is a 
system to organize the coopetition to service that owners. The DNSO is an 
interface off all the stakeholders (servcices and owners) on the specific 
issue of the DNs. A very specific issue in the naming space area which is a 
specific issue amng the concerns of the @large.

I am afraid this is also a loop into something which does not exist. May I 
recall you that the ALSC has identified that their problem was to gather 
enough @large people. They "discovered" that Individual Domain Names 
holders could be their pool of voters, with the huge success we know. Now 
you have a problem in finding Indvidual Domain Names Holders. You 
"discover" that the @lagre could be a pool of IDNH voters... I am afraid 
that at the end of the day it will resolve to Joop, Esther and Mike.

>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?

This idea is worth consideration but it can work only if (as you point it) 
any consituency may be created and aggregated. The most urgent ones being 
the Registrant Constituency and the Users Constituency and a reform of the 
BC to represent the interests of those doing a business for which the DN is 
important. Also that all the @large concerns out of DN issues are addressed 
eleswhere. End the last but notthe least that Constituencies may 
participate in different SOs, so we can keep the ccTLDs.

This way the DNSO will gather:
- - those offering DNs on general (gTLD), national (ccTLD), specialized 
(sTLD) basis.
- - those selling them (Registrars and Reselles./ISPs)
- - those registering them (Registrants: individual, corporate, bulk/consultants)
- - those protecting them (IPC)
- - those using them (Users and Consummes)

jfc

- --=====================_4023058==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Derar Philip,<br>
Bravo for opening the floor on this matter with good questions. However
some remarks:<br>
On 15:19 11/04/02, Philip Sheppard said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2>Problem -
self-organisation and representation have proved challenges for
individual domain name holders. </font></blockquote><br>
There was no problem per se. There was a centralized vision ported by
Joop Teernstra also a good promoter of the cause. The need is real. The
vision IMO is wrong, and at least shown itself sterile. Both at the IDNO
and at the icannatlarge.com. But you cannot correct the errors if you
don't try.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2>So, use the at-large
structure to provide this organisation and to elect its NC
reps.</font></blockquote><br>
This is the Denis Jennings compromise which founded the DNSO as a failure
(as Joe SImis testified) unbalanced witgh the ASO and PSO. The @large are
the most active among the real owners of the Internet. The ICANN is a
system to organize the coopetition to service that owners. The DNSO is an
interface off all the stakeholders (servcices and owners) on the specific
issue of the DNs. A very specific issue in the naming space area which is
a specific issue amng the concerns of the @large. <br><br>
I am afraid this is also a loop into something which does not exist. May
I recall you that the ALSC has identified that their problem was to
gather enough @large people. They &quot;discovered&quot; that Individual
Domain Names holders could be their pool of voters, with the huge success
we know. Now you have a problem in finding Indvidual Domain Names
Holders. You &quot;discover&quot; that the @lagre could be a pool of IDNH
voters... I am afraid that at the end of the day it will resolve to Joop,
Esther and Mike.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2>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?</font></blockquote><br>
This idea is worth consideration but it can work only if (as you point
it) any consituency may be created and aggregated. The most urgent ones
being the Registrant Constituency and the Users Constituency and a reform
of the BC to represent the interests of those doing a business for which
the DN is important. Also that all the @large concerns out of DN issues
are addressed eleswhere. End the last but notthe least that
Constituencies may participate in different SOs, so we can keep the
ccTLDs.<br><br>
This way the DNSO will gather:<br>
- - those offering DNs on general (gTLD), national (ccTLD), specialized
(sTLD) basis.<br>
- - those selling them (Registrars and Reselles./ISPs)<br>
- - those registering them (Registrants: individual, corporate,
bulk/consultants)<br>
- - those protecting them (IPC)<br>
- - those using them (Users and Consummes)<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
</html>

- --=====================_4023058==_.ALT--

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:55:42 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Pulling the plug on the Council

Hello Thomas!

At 11.04.2002 23:42, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>If the council actually delivers on its promise and produces an intelligent, useful, and practicable alternative to the Lynn plan, then it would have proven that it can work kind of "effectively," and may deserve another chance.
>
>If, however, the council does not deliver (for whatever reason), the current DNSO concept has proven beyond all doubt that it is not useful, and not usable.  In this case, the council's plug should indeed be pulled, and it should be replaced by something _radically_ different.
>
>
>I would guess that any work product which does not identify and address the problems with the DNSO's current process would be considered a failure.  Any work product which just says "everything's almost fine" would most likely be a failure.

Although I agree, I concede that the DNSO has had the most
difficult job of all the SOs.

The ASO only oversees and coordinates the bottom-up
policy development process -- which is done by the
regional IP registries. So the ASO has not done much
except for electing representatives to the Board and
organizing meetings. (This is not meant as criticism:
If the bottom-up IP address policy development works,
that's fine! Have a look at the ASO web site and
mailing list and judge for yourself if you see any
activity -- the last posting to aso-policy seems to
have been in September 2001.)

The PSO seems to have even less work. It again elects
representatives to the Board and organizes meetings.
There are two statements from the Protocol Council,
both of which are unrelated to protocol and parameter
assignments (Alternative Roots and At Large Study).
The mailing list archive seems to end in September, too.

The DNSO has a hell of a lot of work. 
I believe that part of the problem lies in the constituency
structure. It's not only about including all relevant 
groups (Philip mentioned individual name holders), it's 
about the constituency representatives not being able to work 
together. Stuart Lynn calls it "the DNSO's complex and 
noisy crowd of working groups, constituencies, and the 
Names Council." 

Not all concerned parties in the Task Forces are 
represented, but even worse -- not all represented
parties seem to be interested in the work. In addition,
some Names Council members see themselves mainly as
constituency representatives and seem unwilling to
work on anything which they don't have a constituency
members' meeting vote on ("imperative mandate")
or which their constituency does not perceive as
important issue. Combine this with the lack of
professional staff support and you end up here.

Stuart Lynn's proposal changes this subtly by adding
not only staff support, but also NomCom-chosen members 
to the Names Policy Council: This makes the gTLD-NPC 
members /individual/ members instead of representatives 
waiting for orders. Don't get me wrong: I don't prefer 
NomComs. I don't mind members getting feedback from 
their constituency, as long as it is done simultaneously 
with the policy development instead of the current 
stop-and-go approach. But the NC members should feel
primarily responsible for gTLD policy development, not
for representing constituency interests. (Additionally,
the DNSO must get rid of incentives to block work
getting done.)

>Anyway, I'm speculating.  It may also be the case that this is all just the fight for having the best deck chairs on the Titanic, as Milton has been suggesting on the NCDNHC's list.

Absolutely no need to do that when you get the plans for your own 
Titanic deck chair for only $9.95 from Popular Woodworking magazine.
http://www.popularwoodworking.com/store/displayplan.asp?id=1139
http://titanic.gov.ns.ca/chair.html

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: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 13:23:14 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Pulling the plug on the Council

On 2002-04-12 11:55:42 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>>I would guess that any work product which does not identify and 
>>address the problems with the DNSO's current process would be 
>>considered a failure.  Any work product which just says 
>>"everything's almost fine" would most likely be a failure.

>Although I agree, I concede that the DNSO has had the most
>difficult job of all the SOs.

Agreed.  However, if the DNSO can't do its difficult job with its 
current structure, this means that the structure should be replaced.

>I believe that part of the problem lies in the constituency 
>structure. It's not only about including all relevant groups 
>(Philip mentioned individual name holders), it's about the 
>constituency representatives not being able to work together. 
>Stuart Lynn calls it "the DNSO's complex and noisy crowd of 
>working groups, constituencies, and the Names Council."

>Not all concerned parties in the Task Forces are represented, but 
>even worse -- not all represented parties seem to be interested in 
>the work. 

You can safely phrase this in still sharper form: Some represented 
parties may be interested in not getting the work done.

>(Additionally, the DNSO must get rid of incentives to block work 
>getting done.)

How?  Quite frankly, I don't see any incentive at all for at least 
one of the large players to get anything done in the DNSO.

>http://www.popularwoodworking.com/store/displayplan.asp?id=1139
>http://titanic.gov.ns.ca/chair.html

Thank you.  Maybe we should start an initiative to get a bunch of 
these delivered to the Bucharest site, for use by board and names 
council members.

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 07:50:47 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Evolution - GA

- --------------7A2B65BA373A58821230621F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Very interesting Jefsey,

This is such a dramatic picture of the "evolution of the GA"  that it
should be enshrined.

Listen up folks;

The GA is not going anywhere soon, the NC is not evaporating as perhaps
it should.  There are no easy answers alla TR and AS.

We have work to do and I ask TR and AS to set up working groups and
utilize our sublists and get some work done around here.

Looky here, I am a Philosopher, degree from NAU 1980, so I have a right
to pontithicate and strategize the future.  The rest of you who have
engineering degrees and the like and need to get things done. NOW get
things done!

Everyone has a job to do and a specific ability.  Cam Ong, right now TR
get organized and make this a viable unit.  There is no other, we are
the ones so get it together and lets' start some work.

Sincerely, with hope,
e

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>  Derar Philip,
> Bravo for opening the floor on this matter with good questions.
> However some remarks:
> On 15:19 11/04/02, Philip Sheppard said:
>
>> Problem - self-organisation and representation have proved
>> challenges for individual domain name holders.
>
>
> There was no problem per se. There was a centralized vision ported by
> Joop Teernstra also a good promoter of the cause. The need is real.
> The vision IMO is wrong, and at least shown itself sterile. Both at
> the IDNO and at the icannatlarge.com. But you cannot correct the
> errors if you don't try.
>
>
>> So, use the at-large structure to provide this organisation and to
>> elect its NC reps.
>
>
> This is the Denis Jennings compromise which founded the DNSO as a
> failure (as Joe SImis testified) unbalanced witgh the ASO and PSO. The
> @large are the most active among the real owners of the Internet. The
> ICANN is a system to organize the coopetition to service that owners.
> The DNSO is an interface off all the stakeholders (servcices and
> owners) on the specific issue of the DNs. A very specific issue in the
> naming space area which is a specific issue amng the concerns of the
> @large.
>
> I am afraid this is also a loop into something which does not exist.
> May I recall you that the ALSC has identified that their problem was
> to gather enough @large people. They "discovered" that Individual
> Domain Names holders could be their pool of voters, with the huge
> success we know. Now you have a problem in finding Indvidual Domain
> Names Holders. You "discover" that the @lagre could be a pool of IDNH
> voters... I am afraid that at the end of the day it will resolve to
> Joop, Esther and Mike.
>
>
>> 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?
>
>
> This idea is worth consideration but it can work only if (as you point
> it) any consituency may be created and aggregated. The most urgent
> ones being the Registrant Constituency and the Users Constituency and
> a reform of the BC to represent the interests of those doing a
> business for which the DN is important. Also that all the @large
> concerns out of DN issues are addressed eleswhere. End the last but
> notthe least that Constituencies may participate in different SOs, so
> we can keep the ccTLDs.
>
> This way the DNSO will gather:
> - those offering DNs on general (gTLD), national (ccTLD), specialized
> (sTLD) basis.
> - those selling them (Registrars and Reselles./ISPs)
> - those registering them (Registrants: individual, corporate,
> bulk/consultants)
> - those protecting them (IPC)
> - those using them (Users and Consummes)
>
> jfc
>

- --------------7A2B65BA373A58821230621F
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Very interesting Jefsey,
<p>This is such a dramatic picture of the "evolution of the GA"&nbsp; that
it should be enshrined.
<p>Listen up folks;
<p>The GA is not going anywhere soon, the NC is not evaporating as perhaps
it should.&nbsp; There are no easy answers alla TR and AS.
<p>We have work to do and I ask TR and AS to set up working groups and
utilize our sublists and get some work done around here.
<p>Looky here, I am a Philosopher, degree from NAU 1980, so I have a right
to pontithicate and strategize the future.&nbsp; The rest of you who have
engineering degrees and the like and need to get things done. NOW get things
done!
<p>Everyone has a job to do and a specific ability.&nbsp; Cam Ong, right
now TR get organized and make this a viable unit.&nbsp; There is no other,
we are the ones so get it together and lets' start some work.
<p>Sincerely, with hope,
<br>e
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<p>Jefsey Morfin wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;Derar Philip,
<br>Bravo for opening the floor on this matter with good questions. However
some remarks:
<br>On 15:19 11/04/02, Philip Sheppard said:
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=-1>Problem - self-organisation
and representation have proved challenges for individual domain name holders.</font></blockquote>

<p><br>There was no problem per se. There was a centralized vision ported
by Joop Teernstra also a good promoter of the cause. The need is real.
The vision IMO is wrong, and at least shown itself sterile. Both at the
IDNO and at the icannatlarge.com. But you cannot correct the errors if
you don't try.
<br>&nbsp;
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=-1>So, use the at-large
structure to provide this organisation and to elect its NC reps.</font></blockquote>

<p><br>This is the Denis Jennings compromise which founded the DNSO as
a failure (as Joe SImis testified) unbalanced witgh the ASO and PSO. The
@large are the most active among the real owners of the Internet. The ICANN
is a system to organize the coopetition to service that owners. The DNSO
is an interface off all the stakeholders (servcices and owners) on the
specific issue of the DNs. A very specific issue in the naming space area
which is a specific issue amng the concerns of the @large.
<p>I am afraid this is also a loop into something which does not exist.
May I recall you that the ALSC has identified that their problem was to
gather enough @large people. They "discovered" that Individual Domain Names
holders could be their pool of voters, with the huge success we know. Now
you have a problem in finding Indvidual Domain Names Holders. You "discover"
that the @lagre could be a pool of IDNH voters... I am afraid that at the
end of the day it will resolve to Joop, Esther and Mike.
<br>&nbsp;
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=-1>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?</font></blockquote>

<p><br>This idea is worth consideration but it can work only if (as you
point it) any consituency may be created and aggregated. The most urgent
ones being the Registrant Constituency and the Users Constituency and a
reform of the BC to represent the interests of those doing a business for
which the DN is important. Also that all the @large concerns out of DN
issues are addressed eleswhere. End the last but notthe least that Constituencies
may participate in different SOs, so we can keep the ccTLDs.
<p>This way the DNSO will gather:
<br>- those offering DNs on general (gTLD), national (ccTLD), specialized
(sTLD) basis.
<br>- those selling them (Registrars and Reselles./ISPs)
<br>- those registering them (Registrants: individual, corporate, bulk/consultants)
<br>- those protecting them (IPC)
<br>- those using them (Users and Consummes)
<p>jfc
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
</html>

- --------------7A2B65BA373A58821230621F--

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:54:15 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Questions on the draft BC Position Paper

Marilyn,

I wanted to take a moment to thank you for producing the document "Toward a 
Business Constituency Position on ICANN Restructuring and Evolution" posted 
at http://www.bizconst.org/BCpositionevolution-final%20draft1.0.doc

I have some initial questions regarding your position paper (and please 
excuse me if these questions have already been asked... unfortunately your 
constituency does not appear to accept the concept of transparency and does 
not provide a publicly archived discussion list):

1.  You state that ICANN must <<Ensure that policy development remains a 
consensus, bottom up process, with all stakeholders represented>>  yet you 
don't outline a plan by which this may be accomplished.  Can you elaborate?
2.  You request that ICANN <<Provide staff support to all parts of the policy 
development process>>.  Currently Louis Touton sits in on most NC 
teleconferences, and the registrars, gTLDs and ccTLDs already have staff 
liaisons (several).  We have Board directors that have participated in open 
Working Groups (remember those?), and Board directors that communicate 
directly with constituencies (such as Alejandro with the NCDNHC, and Vint 
with the GA).  What exactly do you have in mind?
3.  You state that ICANN must <<Work to achieve effective and mutually 
agreeable, models for the RIRs, Root Server operators and technical 
community, to participate in ICANN>>.  By "models" do you mean "contracts"?  
These groups already do participate in ICANN through SOs and Standing 
Committees, so perhaps I don't understand your point.
4.  On the issue of funding, you support <<existing practice>>, and recommend 
that ICANN <<Maintain contributions from ccTLDs and RIRs>>  You also advise 
ICANN to <<not seek government funding>>.  Candidly, these statements do 
little to attend to the issues of funding... could you perhaps outline a real 
plan?  How exactly will ICANN maintain funding from the ccTLDs?
5.  Regarding the Independent Review Panel, you have proposed a <<committee 
which could include, the GAC chair, the IAB chair, two board members or past 
board members, and an appointed and paid ombudsman>>.    What do you see as 
the merits of a Panel with this particular composition?
6.  You state  <<Develop model for board size and composition which ensures 
the board can function while reflecting the establishment of the ccTLD as an 
entity separate from the gTLD entity>>.  The ccTLDs as a constituency are 
already an entity separate from the gTLDs as a constituency.  Are you seeking 
a higher degree of representation on the Board for the ccTLD and  gTLD 
constituencies?  Why?  Should registries have a greater degree of 
representation than registrars?  Should these groups have a higher degree of 
representation than other constituencies?  If so, why?
7.  You state  <<Provide a mechanism to include as ex-officio members the 
chairs of advisory bodies that are created in the restructuring. [GAC, 
etc.]>>  As all Supporting Organizations are advisory bodies, are you 
recommending that in addition to the Board Directors that these groups elect, 
we also create ex-officio positions on the Board for the Chairs of these 
groups?  What is the rationale behind such a suggestion?  Isn't the Board 
large enough already?  What do we gain by adding non-voting members to the 
Board?
8.  You indicate that ICANN should <<Examine whether the GA can support 
structured discussion forums on policy issues to ensure diversity of input>>. 
 What exactly do you mean by this?  The GA already provides a greater degree 
of discussion on topics than any other constituent or structured forum.  What 
is it that requires examination?
9.  With regard to the At-Large, you state <<Preserve the existing five at 
large seats either by 1) extending existing five elected members or 2) having 
an interim appointment process to fill those seats>>.   I don't think we need 
even more board-squatters (even if they are At-Large representatives).  
Please describe the interim appointment process that you propose.  Who will 
make these appointments?
10.  You have stated that the BC supports the principle of 
<<representation>>.  How do you propose to provide representation for domain 
name holders and others that are currently not represented in the process?

more questions will follow... I look forward to your elucidations.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 13:19:38 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Questions on the draft BC Position Paper

Additional questions:

11.  Does the BC support the continued existence of the ASO and PSO?  If not, 
why?
12.  Does the BC support the continued existence of the DNSO? 
13.  Does the BC support the concept of nine At-Large Directors as originally 
promised?  If not, why not?
14.  You state as a requirement for the At-Large a <<stable base of funding 
>> which you regard as a key <<benchmark for participation>>.  Would you deny 
representation to constituencies such as the NCDNHC that have demonstrated 
difficulties in raising funds?  I note that your own constituency has an debt 
derived from the third party costs incurred by the previous secretariat 
($45,000) that still has not been paid.  Had you chosen to pay your bills in 
a forthright and timely fashion, the BC as well would not have had funds to 
participate in the DNSO.  As the BC does not have a stable base of funding 
sufficient to cover all of its financial obligations, are you arguing that 
the BC should be denied a participatory role as well?
15.  In your view, is there any true difference between the BC and the IP?  
Aren't they two sides of the same coin?  Should these two constituencies in 
fact be merged?  If not, why not?
16.  What is the appropriate membership level benchmark for the At-Large?  
What is the benchmark level for other constituencies such as the BC?  
17.  Your constituency still includes SITA (a registry operator) as a member, 
yet the BC has denied membership to other registry operators such as New.net. 
 Does the BC sufficiently believe in the concept of representation to thereby 
support establishing a constituency for the alternate root community?
18.  You have stated <<The BC recommends that we should seek first to improve 
the present process of policy development>>  As the BC has chaired the 
Council, and almost every major committee and task force, and can reasonably 
be held accountable for the state of the present process, how do you suggest 
that ICANN improve the present process?  What plan do you propose?
19.  You argue that <<ICANN needs stronger relationships with the ccTLDs>>.  
The ccTLDs seek a service contract arrangement, and ICANN refuses to operate 
on that basis.  How do you propose ending this impasse?  Exactly what are 
recommending that ICANN do to establish a stronger relationship?
20.  You wrote that we should <<avoid functional segmentation by ensuring 
that key stakeholder categories, not sub-categories, participate>> in the 
Board selection process.  Which subcategories of participants would you 
specifically exclude?  Why?

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:35:32 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Open Letter to Mr Jeff Neuman from The Internet Challenge

Friday, Friday, April 12, 2002, 8:51:29 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:

> I ask you to take a look at these registrations to see if the intent exists
> to sell these names on, in violation of the Registry rules.

Intent to sell is not a violation of the registration agreement,
Richard.  Registration with the SOLE intent to sell is. As long as
they do something else with it too, presumably, then there is no way
to claim sole intent to sell.

So like I said, all your hemming and hawing is just going to force
them to put up a free email service or meta search script.

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:56:25 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] What the Australian Government wants to know about ICANN

Dear all,

Jeanette Hofmann just alerted me to the fact that the Australian
government is carrying out a national consultation process about 
ICANN reform. Interesting!

Best regards,
/// Alexander

Excertps from http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/consult/consult.htm#ICANN

>Views Sought
> The views of interested parties are sought on all aspects of the 
> ICANN reform process.  The Australian Government position will be 
> pursued through the GAC and other relevant forums.  The Government 
> is particularly interested in the following:
>
>Goals 
> Are the original policy principles for ICANN still valid and useful?  
> These principles are:
>   - Preserving stability 
>   - Promoting competition 
>   - Relying where possible on private sector, bottom-up participatory 
>     mechanisms that reflect the functional and geographic diversity 
>     of the Internet 
>   - Development of efficient dispute resolution alternatives (for the 
>     gTLD registries) 
>   - Promoting accountability in management (for all registries) 
> 
>Role 
> What is ICANN’s mission?  What should be the scope of ICANN’s role?  
> Can a distinction be drawn between "technical" and "policy" functions?
> What is the appropriate balance between government, commercial, 
> technical and user interests in meeting ICANN’s responsibilities? 
> 
>Structure 
> Is the concept of elected "at large" representatives participating in 
> ICANN decision-making a realistic and desirable one?  Should at-large 
> involvement occur through alternative means, such as some form of 
> advisory body or public consultation process?
>  - How can ccTLDs be more closely involved in, and committed to, 
>    ICANN processes?  Should governments play a more active role in 
>    facilitating greater commitment to ICANN by "national" ccTLD 
>    administrators? 
>  - What is the most appropriate funding arrangement for ICANN? 
>  - What is the appropriate relationship between ICANN and other 
>    international organisations such as the ITU, WIPO and the OECD?  

- --
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 #1125
*************************