Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1128
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, April 16 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1128

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

Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 02:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Open Letter to Mr Jeff Neuman from The Internet Challenge

Is there really anyone on this list that is not certain that both of the 
below wrongs occured?  Write me I got some bridge in Brooklyn I would like 
you to invest in.

If Vint is this out of touch it is really scary.

Sincerely,
Eric

> Richard,
> 
> One question that bears on this process is whether any interested party
> did not experience fair opportunity to register a name. That's not
> quite what you were asking but it has relevance to assessing sunrise
> processes. The second question is whether any of the registrars were,
> effectively, trading on their own accounts (that is, not registering
> names they intended to use themselves or on behalf of customers but
> intended hold and sell at a later time). I don't know whether the
> current registrar agreements with ICANN treat the specifics of your
> questions below, but I will try to find out.
> 
> vint
> 
> At 01:20 AM 4/15/2002 +0100, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>Dear Jeff and Vint
>>
>>I'd like to ask your advice on ICANN and Neulevel's policy with regard
>>to Registrars applying for names (particularly in queued Landrush
>>situations) on their own behalf. As you know, I have already alluded to
>>concerns I had over Signature Domains, and I look forward to some kind
>>of response - to the principles, if not to the personal details, of
>>this case.
>>
>>I'd also like to draw to your attention - without making any
>>allegations - the case of 007names. In the recent .biz Group 2B names
>>release, 465 names were registered through them, with over half (258)
>>going to their client Vitty Inc.
>>
>>These names were issued to Paul Chou, e-mail address [email-masked] .
>>In the "About" section of Vitty.com there is more information about Mr
>>Chou. It notes that he founded a company called Webex.net (a registrar,
>>parent company of sinonet.com, no reference to vitty.com) with his
>>wife, Joyce Lin. Further whois searches found that the Admin, Billing
>>and Tech Contacts for 007names.com is Joyce Lin of Bridgewater, NJ.
>>007names.com is hosted by (surprise) webex.net on the same server as
>>vitty.com.  Webex.net of Bridgewater, NJ comes up as non-existent in
>>the WHOIS server release 1.0, but in version 1.3 they show that
>>007Names, Inc. is their registrar.
>>
>>My questions are these: are registrars allowed to apply for names in
>>landrush situations through their own Registrar company? Are the
>>families of Registrars allowed to apply for - say - the majority of
>>names submitted in a queue? Do a husband and wife constitute a single
>>entity? Does a Registrar have the right to exploit the advantage of
>>their own position to dominate a queue, in a way which might
>>disadvantage many other people?
>>
>>I'm not making a personal observation on the actions of Vitty Inc or
>>007names. I'm curious about the facts behind their dealings. But my
>>approach to you is in order to get clarification of the rules (which
>>obviously impact on other consumers). I would also respectfully ask you
>>to investigate this specific case if you feel that any rules have been
>>broken and your other customers have been disadvantaged in breach of
>>any agreements.
>>
>>If no rules have been broken, then probably no personal criticism is
>>appropriate, but in that scenario I would call into question the
>>processes that have been set up between ICANN, the Registry and its
>>registrars, as there seem to me to be inadequate safeguards for the
>>majority of ordinary customers, and too much scope for what I would
>>describe as "insider dealing" in the distribution of what should be
>>made publicly available to everybody on fair and level terms.
>>
>>Many thanks for your attention.
>>
>>Richard Henderson
> 
> --
> 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

http://www.Hi-Tek.com
Reality in a Digital World

The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended for the person or
entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material.  Any review, retransmission or other use of, or
taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.  If
you receive this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete
this material from any system.  Thank you!

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 14:10:27 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] NC conclusions, or Phil Sheppard's conclusions?

Phil Sheppard has posted NC conclusions on structure - draft version 5 in 
which the following recommendations are made:  

Recommendation 11 - staff support.  The DNSO and the other policy advisory 
bodies should remain essentially intact and their effectiveness improved by 
the provision of full-time staff to support all aspects of policy making 
including a co-ordinating secretariat and staff support to policy-making task 
forces and similar groups.
 
Recommendation 12 - ccTLDs. Create a new supporting organisation for the 
ccTLDs. 

Having listened to the teleconferences, I don't recall discussion on these 
two points, or any type of agreement on the part of the participants to 
advance such recommendations.   Thomas, what is your recollection?
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:00:23 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: NC conclusions, or Phil Sheppard's conclusions?

On 2002-04-15 14:10:27 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

>Recommendation 11 - staff support.  The DNSO and the other policy  
>advisory bodies should remain essentially intact and their  
>effectiveness improved by the provision of full-time staff to  
>support all aspects of policy making including a co-ordinating  
>secretariat and staff support to policy-making task forces and  
>similar groups.

I have suggested that kind of staff support myself; I do not recall  
any objection against that.  As far as I recall, there were no  
substantive suggestions from council members on changing the  
consensus process.

>Recommendation 12 - ccTLDs. Create a new supporting organisation 
>for the ccTLDs. 

While I don't recall an explicit discussion of this, I was under the 
impression that the concept of a ccSO is generally accepted in the  
council (and beyond).

>Having listened to the teleconferences, I don't recall discussion 
>on these two points, or any type of agreement on the part of the 
>participants to advance such recommendations.  Thomas, what is
>your recollection?

See above.  Of course, my recollection may be faulty - I didn't  
bother to check this.  

In fact, it is also irrelevant whether or not explicit consensus has 
been reached on these questions during the conference calls:  
Philip's job is not only to summarize consensus which has been  
achieved, but also to lead the conuncil in achieving consensus.  One 
tool on that way is to draft possible recommendations which can then 
be discussed by their merit.  The fact that there have been no  
objections on the council list so far may indicate that council  
members agree with the consensus formulated by Philip.

Philip should, in particular, not be attacked _because_ he is  
circulating these drafts - even when you don't agree with their  
content, they are an important tool in order to move discussion  
forward, and focus arguments.

- -- 
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: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:05:46 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Independent Review.

On 2002-04-12 11:54:15 -0400, [email-masked] wrote on a BC  
position draft:

>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?

Personally, I find this idea quite interesting:  Such a review panel 
could draw from experience in the technical and social/political 
fields, and from the experience of former board members with the 
board's way of thinking and operating.

Finally, merging the ombudsman and IRP concepts also looks 
attractive to me.

However, I believe that such a composition may bear a number of  
significant problems.  For instance, other constituencies of various 
SOs may also call for direct representation on a review panel.

- -- 
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: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:24:01 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] NC Recommendations

Thomas,

I'm not concerned about the issue of "staff support".  I am questioning the 
recommendation that the DNSO, ASO, and PSO "should remain essentially 
intact", and should be augmented by a ccSO.

An SO for the ccTLDs will grant them three seats on the Board.  Meanwhile, 
neither the gTLDs nor the registrars will obtain such representation, nor 
will any other constituency obtain comparable representation on the Board.  
Why then is this a "good idea"?  On what basis do we justify giving enhanced 
representation to this one particular group?

Furthermore, why should the DNSO itself remain intact?  It's problems do not 
stem primarily from a purported lack of staff support -- they go much deeper, 
and I see no proposal on the table which allows for the reform of the DNSO.

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:47:25 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC Recommendations

On 2002-04-15 15:24:01 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

>I'm not concerned about the issue of "staff support".  I am  
>questioning the recommendation that the DNSO, ASO, and PSO "should 
>remain essentially intact", and should be augmented by a ccSO.

If you have reservations about the substance of Philip's paper, why  
did you phrase them in a way which made them sound like reservations 
about the process used by Philip?  I'd suggest you give a clear  
indication of your substantial reservations instead.

- -- 
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: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:21:34 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA summary #14: April 10 - April 15, 2002.

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's (and related) 
discussions and news between April 10, 2002, and April 15, 2002.

GA list archives are available online at 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/maillist.html>.

Please feel free to forward this summary as you believe to be 
appropriate.

		   Deadline: 14 days until E&R-day

The deadline for useful input to the Evolution and Reform Committee  
expires on April 29, i.e., in 14 days.   
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00004.html>

				Topics

(i) OECD report on whois issues.  Danny Younger forwarded an excerpt 
 from an OECD report  
<http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00027000/M00027316.pdf> on WHOIS and 
cybersquatting experience.  The report claims, based on OECD's own 
experience with ocde.org [the French abbreviation of the 
organization's name], that "the registrars' interest is to keep the 
cybersquatters as client for the volume of registration fees they 
generate and to avoid helping the victim." In a follow-up message, 
Dan Steinberg notes that "a determination of 'cybersquatting' is 
really something no one can make in advance." "Only the courts have 
the right to act as courts," Dan writes.  Ross Rader added that "the 
OECD statements make 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."  
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00251.html>,  
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00253.html>,  
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00254.html>.

(ii) The UDRP, and court orders.  James Love forwarded some  
information on the CNNews.com case: "The registrar 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 the terms of its  
accreditation agreement." James' message included links to some of  
the correspondence.  Finally, he asks whether there is "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?"
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00255.html>

I posted a follow-up note stating that "I seem to understand that  
paragraph 3(b) of the UDRP is believed to be applicable." Dan  
Steinberg (who represents the GA on the UDRP task force) followed up 
to this and reminded participants to be careful what exactly we are  
talking about.  In particular, he notes that paragraph 3(b) of the  
UDRP governs the actions of the registrar, not ICANN's.  (The 
paragraph in question says that the registrar will "cancel,  
transfer or otherwise make changes to domain name registrations  
under the following circumstances: [...] receipt of an order from a  
court or arbitral tribunal, in each case of competent jurisdiction,  
requiring such action") 

As a conclusion, Dan writes: "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?"
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00264.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00270.html>.

Maybe the UDRP task force should cover this question in its work?

(iii) Independent Review.  I sent a couple of possible options for  
independent review mechanisms to the GA list.  Joop Teernstra  
replied that he thinks "it is misguided to now start casting about  
for watered-down alternatives." The only idea he likes "is that of  
an industry Ombudsman, but this office could be separated from ICANN 
altogether and should not be used for review of board decisions."  
Peter Dengate-Thrush followed up to state his agreement.  "As a  
member of the IRAC," he writes, "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." He then gives some details  
on the implementation process, in which three out of six members of  
the nomination committee proposed a list of names for an independent 
review panel, while the other three did not actively support that 
list.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00257.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00258.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00259.html>.

In related news, another member of the Independent Review Advisory  
Committee, Ethan Katsh, has sent a reconsideration request to ICANN. 
He specifically asks for the board resolutions 02.46 and 02.47 to be 
reconsidered.  In these resolutions, the independent review issue is 
passed on to the Evolution and Reform Committee.  Katsh argues that  
the board based its decision exclusively on implementation problems, 
which could be solved by, for instance, replacing some of the  
members of the nomination committee.  "The response of the Board to  
disband the committee, rather than to attempt to get new members or  
replace non-participating ones, cannot be an action that is  
consistent with what the MOU requires," Katsh writes.   
<http://www.umass.edu/cyber/icannreview.htm>,   
<http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=670&mode=nested&order=1&thold=1>,
<http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm#02.46>.

Finally, yet another proposal for an independent review panel can be 
found in a business constituency draft quoted and criticized by  
Danny Younger: "a <<committee which could include, the GAC chair,  
the IAB chair, two board members or past board members, and an  
appointed and paid ombudsman>>."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00292.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00296.html>.

(iv) Evolution / GA.  Philip Sheppard posted a personal reflection  
on the relationship between the NC and GA.  In his message, he  
suggests to get all groups who represent significant stakeholders to 
form a constituency, and participate in the NC.  For individual  
domain name holders, the at-large structure is used. Finally, all  
constituencies vote for a DNSO chair "who simultaneously chairs the  
NC and GA." Alexander Svensson agreed that "individual gTLD  
registrants must have a recognized place in gTLD policy  
development," but disagrees on using an at large structure for this  
representation since an at large membership would encompass more  
than just domain name holders.  
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00265.html>,  
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00268.html>.

Roberto Gaetano followed up to Philip with some doubts, too: "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." As examples for  
people who may not be constituency members, but could still wish to  
participate, he mentions people from the PSO or ASO.  "So the GA  
will include all constituencies, but not limited to." Also, he  
notes that "the logic of the representativity in the GA is 'one  
individual - one voice', which is different from the  
NC/constituencies" - and can lead to results different from what a  
vote which is counted by constituencies would yield.  Roberto also  
disagrees about using an at large membership as an "eight  
constituency" because (1) it should include individuals who may just 
have an interest in non-DNSO ICANN issues, and (2) such a  
constituency would be unmanageable.  Starting from the same  
assumptions as Philip, Roberto ends up with two options for a  
solution: "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)." <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00266.html>.

(v) Unrelated reregistrations.  Ben Edelman asked for assistance  
with "unrelated reregistrations." The example which prompted his  
research was a search for a bicycle dealer, which lead him to a  
"sexually-explicit" site which resides under the domain name no  
longer used by Bicycle Bill.  The links below lead to the  
discussion on this, which includes a couple of suggestions how to  
find more examples of the kind of reregistration Ben mentioned;  
these suggestions included mining old and current versions of TLD 
zone files, and looking at older SnapNames.com lists of successful 
SnapBacks.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00304.html>,  
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00305.html>,  
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00306.html>,  
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00307.html>,  
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00310.html>.

George Kirikos noted that "from an ICANN policy point of view these  
matters are related to:" 1. uniform deletions regulation and  
transfer policies, 2. whois data correctness, 3. better education of 
the end user community. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00311.html>.

If you want to help Ben with his research, please go to 
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/renewals/submit/> and 
submit more examples.

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

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

Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 21:01:36 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Candidates for the first At Large Panel

FYI, candidates for the upcoming election:

Izumi Aizu
Sotiris Sotiropoulos
Vittorio Bertola
Eric Dierker
Richard Henderson
James Fiander
Veni Markovski
Robert Gray
Dr Johannes K Chiang
Roozbeh Pournader
YJ Park
Wawa Ngenge
Ron Sherwood
James Love
Wolfgang Kleinwaechter
Vivek Durai
Satyajit Gupta
Alan Levin
Bretton Vine
Daniel Chalef

More details at www.icannatlarge.com/voting.htm
Current membership: 769

- --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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1128
*************************