Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1132
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, April 19 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1132

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

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:18:47 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Notes from today's NC call.

Apparently, the text of YJ's comments did not post properly to the list.  Her 
comments:  

"I have been still waiting for the Accra TF meeting minutes 
which I could not attend. I asked for the meeting minutes though
both TF list(Mar. 20) and private message to the Chair(Apr. 1).

I was asked to leave the meeting at the beginning of the TF 
meeting by Chair of the TF, Stuart Lynn."

Full text at http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2002-April/001951.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, 18 Apr 2002 15:32:31 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

High margin, low-volume and something that suffers under poorly defined
policy. The "opt-out" (and only for individuals) clause is only but one
aspect of the policy that need be examined. There are others.

It is our contention that bulk whois need move to an opt-in model as
outlined in our proposal on the subject.
<http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=104 for more details>.

It is our hope that the Whois TF take a serious look and adopt, if not the
letter, the spirit of our recommendations.

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

> And, Jon, I think one will find that the majority of those who support
> bulk access are doing so with their own pocket book in mind, with no
> mind whatever to the right of privacy.  Make that buck at any cost to
> anyone else. The misinformation being spewed out by them rivals that
> of Al Queda in its audacity.
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> Jon Lawrence wrote:
>
> >George Kirikos wrote:
> >
> >"Providing bulk access to the WHOIS is hardly a profit center for
> >registrars..."
> >
> >...at US$10,000 per licensee per annum for providing access to a database
> >that only need be updated once weekly, I would think that the obligation
> >to provide bulk whois access is for many registrars a very high margin
profit
> >centre indeed.
> >
> >regards
> >jon lawrence
> >
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:14:27 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Notes from today's NC call.

Just fyi, here are the two parts which Thomas and I were
referring to transcribed. I hope I caught everything right.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

Roger Cochetti:

 Next point is recommendation 11 [this refers to the draft v5
 at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00065.html],
 and, I guess the [gTLD registry] constituency's reaction would 
 be just delete the recommendation altogether.
 There are two substantive thoughts captured in the recommendation,
 one is that the DNSO should remain intact, and the second is that
 ICANN at the corporate level should cover the cost of the DNSO.
 On the first, we don't believe that the DNSO should remain intact,
 and secondly, on the issue of who should cover the costs of 
 anything like the DNSO, it's been our position all along that
 those who participate in the DNSO should cover its costs, that
 should not be an ICANN expense.
 [...]
 Probably the concepts that Stuart Lynn put forward in his plan
 come closer to where the constituency seems to be headed than
 the construction that Marilyn just offered [i.e. two policy
 development entities, one for generic TLD, one for ccTLDs]
 which is to say, a producer policy group, a, you know, policy
 groups that are functional.

J. Scott Evans:

 Basically, at this very preliminary stage, I'll let you know
 where the IPC is coming from. We sort of are batting around
 two ideas. The first idea is the DNSO doesn't exist anymore.
 That the work, that the DNSO is basically pushed up to the
 Board level, that the President or CEO, and issues are brought to
 his attention by anyone, that a committee, either ad hoc or standing 
 commitees are then developed, similar to some of the committees 
 that we've had that have been put together on certain issues
 and it would select members from the stakeholder communities
 which are affected by the decision. Then those committees 
 would have a staff liaison; it would also have a board liaison
 that would work with those committees to make sure that 
 a recommendation is being brought to the full board and 
 that those committees will be limited in number of people
 and they will be picked for their particular expertise
 regarding the particular issue. That is one idea.
 [...]
 [On selection of committee members:] That we haven't gotten to 
 yet. Right now, it could be a nominating committee or could be by 
 the Board themselves. We haven't worked through all those issues.
 I'm giving you just a broad understanding. 
 Our second idea is that there be certain advisory bodies or trade 
 organizations that are already out there such as WIPO, ISOC, IETF, 
 IAB that would be out there and that when an issue comes up, it 
 would be decided by the Board who that issue involves of those 
 contracted advisory groups that are separate, third-party, completely 
 separate entities. And then those entities, the issue would be 
 exported from the Board to those entities, to take an example,
 like WIPO did with the UDRP, would do the consensus, do the whole 
 task of developing, going around, it's paying for everything,
 doing everything. And then they would develop a policy, that
 policy, or a policy recommendation would then go to the Board. 
 So, those are the two areas, we have not decided which one is 
 better, those are the two ideas just floating around at our 
 constituency.

- --
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, 19 Apr 2002 00:31:56 +0200
From: "Frederic P. MENSE - EurNet" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Mime-Version: 1.0

unsubscribe ga

- --
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, 18 Apr 2002 16:17:24 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

Thursday, Thursday, April 18, 2002, 11:45:18 AM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> 'Fraid not, Eric.  What WXW refers to are tax records on real property,
> which have been a part of the law since day #1. When the Feds start thinking
> about taxing domain name ownership, then maybe the issue will arise.

Bill, I expect more from you.  You know they are not simply tax
records, they actually contain a VAST array of data about the property
and property owners.  They are not referred to as tax records, they
are property records.

That property are one reason why they maintain them is a good point,
but it is not the only reason.  Far from it.  Not even the most
important.

- -- 
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, 19 Apr 2002 12:11:01 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

At 07:29 p.m. 17/04/2002 -0700, George Kirikos wrote:

>I think a domain name is a privilege, not a right.

Naming is an act that creates rights to a name.  This is fundamental.
Registering a Domain  name creates  a right, with certain duties and 
responsibilities attached.

<rhetoric>
How would you feel when your children walked into your national birth 
certificate registry to be told that carrying the name you gave them name 
was a privilege, not a right?
</rhetoric>

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Notes from today's NC call.

This sure does look bad.  But I have constantly watched PS treat YJ like 
she has the plague.  PS does not appear to have room in his head for 
thought that is not his.

YJ is a threat to anyone who tries to rule by fiat and not thought and 
discourse.

thank you for reminding us just how poorly ICANN officials act. (i include 
the nc in such rabble)

Eric

> Apparently, the text of YJ's comments did not post properly to the
> list.  Her  comments:  
> 
> "I have been still waiting for the Accra TF meeting minutes 
> which I could not attend. I asked for the meeting minutes though
> both TF list(Mar. 20) and private message to the Chair(Apr. 1).
> 
> I was asked to leave the meeting at the beginning of the TF 
> meeting by Chair of the TF, Stuart Lynn."
> 
> Full text at
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2002-April/001951.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

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: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

When Bulk mail, bulk email and spamming become inneffective they will cease.
Global awareness of refusal to respond will be a very good starting point.

> At 06:04 PM 4/17/2002 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>>Please note the following comment posted by Tim Ruiz to the registrars
>>list:
>>
>><< I understand the reasoning behind public disclosure of registrant
>>data but it seems to have gone too far. In this day and age of privacy
>>concerns it's a little insane that Registrars are required to make
>>their customer data available to the public in bulk.  One-offs through
>>a Web interface are one thing. Requirements for bulk access, including
>>open ports, to the data are just too much. It's an open invitation to
>>abuse with no one really willing to enforce proper use of the data. In
>>fairness, I'm not sure there is any way to enforce it given the
>>international nature of what we do. I believe there should NOT be any
>>requirement for open port, or bulk, access to this data.>>
>>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02333.html
>>
>>I share Tim's point of view, and would appeciate hearing the position
>>of GA members on this topic (especially the views of those members that
>>now participate on the WHOIS Committee).
> 
> 
> Danny,
> 
> I fantasize about not receiving SPAM, how much faster everyone's
> Internet  Access could be without all the junk mail cluttering up our
> bandwidth, how  much better the world would be if people just backed
> off and let us find  them when we WANT/NEED their service, not being
> found by them.  They don't  know what we want or what we need.  They
> don't know if we are male or  female, single or married, promiscuous or
> frigid, 8 years old or 50, etc.
> 
> In response to your more specific question:
> 
> My preference would be:
> 
> Registrants are provided the opportunity
> to OPT-IN for inclusion in the bulk access process
> either at the time of registration
> or as a modification option via Web GUI.
> 
> OPT-OUT is really not a good philosophy.
> 
> I would prefer there were no,
> "requirement for open port, or bulk, access to this data" (from above);
> however, I more prefer the WHOIS database be
> as available as possible
> to folks other than Bulk Marketers
> and therefore support the convenience be provided to them,
> especially at a price which enables the Registrars
> to make a little more money
>so the services I need
> can continue to be as cost effective as possible.
> 
> So, I neither have the best solution; but am willing to listen and 
> learn.  And I want a Great Solution to present during the next meeting 
> which I believe we are working toward.
> 
> :)
> 
> ~k
> 
> Kristy McKee
> 
> --
> 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: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 01:57:06 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Discussion Paper:  At-Large "Nominations"

There are times when the ICANN Board states a reason for a given action that, 
while seemingly plausible, does not appear to truly reflect the actual 
thinking of the Board.   In other words, the stated reason seems to hide the 
true considerations that prompted the decision.

The recent resolution to cancel upcoming elections for At-large directors is 
one such example.  The Board publicly stated that it was prompted by concerns 
about capture, identity verification processes, and by the validity, 
fairness, representativeness, affordability and practicality of global online 
elections... a lot of verbiage outlining concerns that had already been 
sufficiently discounted by both major groups that had investigated the 
At-Large election issues, the ALSC and NAIS.

What is most likely the truth of the matter?  

We know that an election process will invariably draw highly vocal critics of 
ICANN.  We also know that in a climate where it is fashionable to hate the 
ICANN organization such critics have an extremely high chance of being 
elected by the voting members of the general public.  The ICANN Board was 
facing the very real political prospect of having half of their Board 
potentially populated by their worst critics.  There are those on the current 
Board that view such a prospect as destabilizing and "not in the best 
interests of the Corporation" -- essentially they strongly maintain the view 
that such a Board composition would thoroughly paralyze the organization, and 
no way in Hell would they ever allow such a development to proceed unchecked.

The elections were cancelled for pretty much the same reasons that national 
governments on occasion choose to cancel an election cycle -- fear of the 
potential success of the rival opposition party, and the sentiment that a 
government that included in great measure such nefarious elements would 
ill-serve the nation's needs.  The motivation may be misguided but it still 
is, in one sense, almost patriotic.

I will not argue as to the relative validity of the motivations that prompted 
the Board's action.  My intent here is to determine a proper course of action 
that may yet preserve the At-Large while still respecting the Board's 
sensibilities.

Being pragmatic, we have to realize that this Board still wields the power 
and still controls the process.  Yes, there are those that believe that if 
sufficient pressure is exerted upon Congress, a successor agency to ICANN 
will be designated, or at the very least the ICANN contracts will be re-bid.  
I, however, have a different sense of the political landscape... as long as 
ICANN doesn't thoroughly screw up in the days ahead, the Department of 
Commerce will honor the stated attempt to reform/restructure this 
organization as an activity undertaken in good faith, and will convince 
Congress that the DoC is sufficiently diligent in their oversight role to 
ensure that Congress's concerns will be satisfied.  ICANN will survive yet 
another day in an amended form.

The issue we now face is how to obtain the necessary complement of At-Large 
directors in a manner that does not ostensibly "threaten" the currently 
seated Board.   If the Board can feel a necessary "comfort level" with the 
next set of At-Large directors, then the Board's perceived need to reduce the 
level of At-Large representation from that which was originally promised 
evaporates.  

All of us that participated in the "clean-sheet study" process understood 
that the ALSC never had a documented "consensus" to reduce the number of 
At-Large directors -- that recommendation was simply a poorly designed 
subterfuge to conceal the fact that the Committee believed that the Board 
would only accept ongoing At-large elections if the number of At-Large 
directors was reduced to a "controllable" amount.

As it turned out, even that reduced amount of directors proved to be an 
unacceptable risk to the current Board.  The ALSC miscalculated, and 
elections were cancelled.

That brings us to our present state of affairs... 

If we are to have our full complement of At-large directors, we must first 
recognize the risk that open elections pose to the Board, and secondly we 
must craft an alternative process that will both be acceptable to the Board 
and which will effectively meet the needs of the broader At-Large community.  
In an earlier recommendation, I have already proposed an election plan based 
on a quantifiable subset of the At-Large.  In this recommendation, I consider 
the merits of the nomination process as the only other remaining option.

The key issue is:  if we have to resort to nominations of At-Large Directors, 
who will be making the nominations?   The At-Large Community will rightfully 
feel betrayed if such nominations are made by either a Board Committee, or by 
the non-At-Large directors on the Board.  The one solution that is eminently 
logical and reasonable is for all At-large directors to nominate their own 
replacements (with the suggested caveat that no director may select a 
replacement from his/her own country).  

At this point in time, I believe that the Board is sufficiently comfortable 
with the judgement of the bulk of its At-large directors to not feel 
threatened by the prospect that they will select poor replacements (and even 
should such a "poor" selection be made by any one or two At-Large directors, 
such new Board members would invariably become a very "manageable" minority 
element).  The At-large community, by the same token, should be able to feel 
comfortable with the fact that their own representatives will be making a 
well-considered choice that serves to guarantee geographic/cultural 
diversity.  Most obviously, the informed electorate that formerly would have 
voted now becomes able to lobby its representative in favor of certain 
candidates.  No...  a vote is not held, but nonetheless the public can make 
its choice of candidates known and can encourage the At-large director to 
make the "right choice" through open processes.

I recognize that there are always flaws in any proposal, and that we haven't 
accounted for how the currently "non-elected" At-Large directors would 
guarantee that their choices added to the cultural/geographic diversity that 
we require, but that is why this is a discussion paper...
- --
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, 19 Apr 2002 03:28:36 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] The BC Position on ICANN Evolution and Reform

The Business Constituency website now states:

<<BC position on ICANN Evolution and Reform
This paper, authored by Marilyn Cade, is now accepted as a BC Position.>>

Needless to say, there are no changes in this document (even in spite of the 
extensive list of questions prepared for Marilyn).  So, one might ask, how 
exactly does the BC arrive at a "position"?  

The BC website offers a succinct explanation:  <<The draft position will be 
circulated for comment or posted on the web site. Members will be notified 
that there will be a 14 days’ period for comment.  If no comments are 
received the position will be deemed approved.>>

The problem with this approach is that within the BC, members rarely, if 
ever, participate on the mailing list (this is one of the reasons that the BC 
refuses to publicly archive their list  -- they are embarrassed by the fact 
that almost no one in their constituency ever has anything to say (with the 
exception of Jefsey and Andy Duff), and they need to hide the fact that 
almost all decisions and positions are exclusively made by only three people, 
Phil, Marilyn and Grant, without the benefit of any other member input 
whatsoever).

So, in short... Marilyn quickly drafted something to throw up on the 
website... as usual no one had anything to say... and that became the BC 
"position".

Spend some time and look at the document.  You will find that it is one of 
the most vaguest non-substantive pieces of paper produced by this almost 
useless constituency that can't be bothered to propose any specific solutions 
to our current set of problems.  All the more reason why the BC should be 
de-commissioned as a constituency in the restructured ICANN.  We don't need 
both this group and the IP lobby (just one will suffice, and these two appear 
to be no more than mirror images of each other anyway).

- --
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, 19 Apr 2002 09:44:52 -0100
From: "Andy Duff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The BC Position on ICANN Evolution and Reform

The logic behind the Business Constituency's rather unique interpretation of "consensus" is actually even more bizarre if you look at it closely.

The argument goes that generally members of the business constituency are too busy to want to be bothered with participating in a mailing list; consequently, the officers should have delegated power to state "draft positions", which will become "official positions" if there is no comment on the list. See the flaw? If businesses are too busy to read or participate in mailing lists.... then how can silence be interpreted as acceptance?

From a personal perspective, participating in this constituency on behalf of Basic Fusion over the last month has been extremely frustrating, not because I did not get my way (I fully accept that the positions I took were often minority ones) but because of the strange rules and frequent disregard for process that are used within the constituency to stifle open debate. 

One particular example of these strange rules is the Constituency's "Communication Guidelines" which can be seen at http://www.bizconst.org/bccomms.htm. Under these guidelines, the list moderator "... may composite replies on the same topic, change the subject line, remove trailing e-mails, or take any other action designed to make reading the e-mails clear and simple for members." A consequence of this is that it is often impossible to follow email trails (responses to a posted topic almost always have their headings changed), and that an individual posting can find itself tagged on to the end of three postings composited together, relegating a particular contribution in terms of importance.

Although a BC-bashing session per se is clearly not useful on this mailing list, I do think that the manner in which the BC operates is pertinent to the current discussions on ICANN reform, since it highlights just how idealistic it is to think that a privatised policy-making function like ICANN can work efficiently and well. The reality is that the lack of accountability within ICANN has allowed a small cadre to effectively adopt the BC as a platform for ensuring their own viewpoint has disproportionate weight in the process. 

Personally, I don't think that the ICANN reform group should be looking to create another policy function whether 100% private, 50/50 private/public, 100% public or anything. Rather they should be looking at how to create a DNS governance structure that allows maximum input for the market into how the DNS develops, and minimal input from unaccountable individuals and organisations that arrogantly proclaim to represent the "will of the internet community".

andy duff
[email-masked]

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: 19 April 2002 06:29
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] The BC Position on ICANN Evolution and Reform

The Business Constituency website now states:

<<BC position on ICANN Evolution and Reform
This paper, authored by Marilyn Cade, is now accepted as a BC Position.>>

Needless to say, there are no changes in this document (even in spite of the 
extensive list of questions prepared for Marilyn).  So, one might ask, how 
exactly does the BC arrive at a "position"?  

The BC website offers a succinct explanation:  <<The draft position will be 
circulated for comment or posted on the web site. Members will be notified 
that there will be a 14 days’ period for comment.  If no comments are 
received the position will be deemed approved.>>

The problem with this approach is that within the BC, members rarely, if 
ever, participate on the mailing list (this is one of the reasons that the BC 
refuses to publicly archive their list  -- they are embarrassed by the fact 
that almost no one in their constituency ever has anything to say (with the 
exception of Jefsey and Andy Duff), and they need to hide the fact that 
almost all decisions and positions are exclusively made by only three people, 
Phil, Marilyn and Grant, without the benefit of any other member input 
whatsoever).

So, in short... Marilyn quickly drafted something to throw up on the 
website... as usual no one had anything to say... and that became the BC 
"position".

Spend some time and look at the document.  You will find that it is one of 
the most vaguest non-substantive pieces of paper produced by this almost 
useless constituency that can't be bothered to propose any specific solutions 
to our current set of problems.  All the more reason why the BC should be 
de-commissioned as a constituency in the restructured ICANN.  We don't need 
both this group and the IP lobby (just one will suffice, and these two appear 
to be no more than mirror images of each other anyway).

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

- --
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, 19 Apr 2002 05:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The BC Position on ICANN Evolution and Reform

You folks flag me.

You speak in non consequential terms.

You are beyond common understanding.

Good for you!

But I worry for you.

Good luck.

Sincerely,
Eric

> The logic behind the Business Constituency's rather unique
> interpretation of "consensus" is actually even more bizarre if you look
> at it closely.
> 
> The argument goes that generally members of the business constituency
> are too busy to want to be bothered with participating in a mailing
> list; consequently, the officers should have delegated power to state
> "draft positions", which will become "official positions" if there is
> no comment on the list. See the flaw? If businesses are too busy to
> read or participate in mailing lists.... then how can silence be
> interpreted as acceptance?
> 
>>From a personal perspective, participating in this constituency on
>>behalf of Basic Fusion over the last month has been extremely
>>frustrating, not because I did not get my way (I fully accept that the
>>positions I took were often minority ones) but because of the strange
>>rules and frequent disregard for process that are used within the
>>constituency to stifle open debate. 
> 
> One particular example of these strange rules is the Constituency's
> "Communication Guidelines" which can be seen at
> http://www.bizconst.org/bccomms.htm. Under these guidelines, the list
> moderator "... may composite replies on the same topic, change the
> subject line, remove trailing e-mails, or take any other action
> designed to make reading the e-mails clear and simple for members." A
> consequence of this is that it is often impossible to follow email
> trails (responses to a posted topic almost always have their headings
> changed), and that an individual posting can find itself tagged on to
> the end of three postings composited together, relegating a particular
> contribution in terms of importance.
> 
> Although a BC-bashing session per se is clearly not useful on this
> mailing list, I do think that the manner in which the BC operates is
> pertinent to the current discussions on ICANN reform, since it
> highlights just how idealistic it is to think that a privatised
> policy-making function like ICANN can work efficiently and well. The
> reality is that the lack of accountability within ICANN has allowed a
> small cadre to effectively adopt the BC as a platform for ensuring
> their own viewpoint has disproportionate weight in the process. 
> 
> Personally, I don't think that the ICANN reform group should be looking
> to create another policy function whether 100% private, 50/50
> private/public, 100% public or anything. Rather they should be looking
> at how to create a DNS governance structure that allows maximum input
> for the market into how the DNS develops, and minimal input from
> unaccountable individuals and organisations that arrogantly proclaim to
> represent the "will of the internet community".
> 
> andy duff
> [email-masked]
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
> Of [email-masked]
> Sent: 19 April 2002 06:29
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] The BC Position on ICANN Evolution and Reform
> 
> 
> The Business Constituency website now states:
> 
> <<BC position on ICANN Evolution and Reform
> This paper, authored by Marilyn Cade, is now accepted as a BC
> Position.>>
> 
> Needless to say, there are no changes in this document (even in spite
> of the  extensive list of questions prepared for Marilyn).  So, one
> might ask, how  exactly does the BC arrive at a "position"?  
> 
> The BC website offers a succinct explanation:  <<The draft position
> will be  circulated for comment or posted on the web site. Members will
> be notified  that there will be a 14 days’ period for comment.  If no
> comments are  received the position will be deemed approved.>>
> 
> The problem with this approach is that within the BC, members rarely,
> if  ever, participate on the mailing list (this is one of the reasons
> that the BC  refuses to publicly archive their list  -- they are
> embarrassed by the fact  that almost no one in their constituency ever
> has anything to say (with the  exception of Jefsey and Andy Duff), and
> they need to hide the fact that  almost all decisions and positions are
> exclusively made by only three people,  Phil, Marilyn and Grant,
> without the benefit of any other member input  whatsoever).
> 
> So, in short... Marilyn quickly drafted something to throw up on the 
> website... as usual no one had anything to say... and that became the
> BC  "position".
> 
> Spend some time and look at the document.  You will find that it is one
> of  the most vaguest non-substantive pieces of paper produced by this
> almost  useless constituency that can't be bothered to propose any
> specific solutions  to our current set of problems.  All the more
> reason why the BC should be  de-commissioned as a constituency in the
> restructured ICANN.  We don't need  both this group and the IP lobby
> (just one will suffice, and these two appear  to be no more than mirror
> images of each other anyway).
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:18:18 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: IP: Feds might use Microsoft product for online ID

Some though that my understanding of the MS policy was too much...

>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=134438173&zsection_id=268448455&slug=passport18&date=20020418
>
>Feds might use Microsoft product for online ID
>By Brier Dudley
>Seattle Times technology reporter
>
>Forget about a national ID card. Instead, the federal government
>might use Microsoft's Passport technology to verify the online
>identity of America's citizens, federal employees and businesses,
>according to the White House technology czar.
>
>On Sept. 30, the government plans to begin testing Web sites
>where businesses can pay taxes and citizens can learn about
>benefits and social services. It's also exploring how to verify
>the identity of users so the sites can share private information.
>
>Microsoft's Passport is being considered as a way to authenticate
>users of the Web sites, said Mark Forman, associate director of
>information technology at the White House.
>
>"They are involved in that discussion,'' he said, adding that the
>government has not yet selected which technology it will use.
>
>Forman, who is overseeing the government's purchases of $100
>billion worth of technology this year and next, was a featured
>speaker at the Microsoft Government Leaders Conference in Seattle
>this week.
>
>Forman is a former Senate staffer who worked for IBM and Unisys
>before he joined the Bush administration.
>
>Describing himself as the government's chief information officer,
>he said his priorities are to impose businesslike approaches for
>technology deployments and to monitor improvements they bring.
>
>After the Sept. 11 attacks, some politicians and business leaders
>have called for a national identification card, but Forman said
>that's not in the works. "We don't have any plans for a national
>ID card," he said.
>
>The White House is instead pursuing an "e-identification"
>initiative, an effort to develop ways to authenticate people and
>businesses online who already have government identification
>numbers such as Social Security, business-registration and
>employer-identification numbers.
>
>At the government-leaders conference, attended by representatives
>of 75 countries, Microsoft presented a blueprint for its
>"e-government" strategy that suggests they use Passport to verify
>the identity of visitors to their Web sites. It also suggested
>that its bCentral business Web site could be used to process
>business tax payments and that citizens could use its MSN Web
>site to handle address changes and voter registration.
>
>Governments have long been some of Microsoft's biggest
>customers. Its desktop software for office workers and back-end
>software running networks are widely by used by state and federal
>agencies, and the company has developed Internet portals for the
>United Kingdom, Mexico and other nations.
>
>But getting the United States to use Passport to authenticate
>its 285 million citizens online would be a coup for the Redmond
>software company. It would also be a large step toward fulfilling
>Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates' stated goal of getting everyone on
>the Internet to use Passport as their sign-on tool.
>
>Yesterday, appearing at the conference, Gates reiterated the
>goal, saying he expects governments in many countries will find
>it difficult getting to "critical mass" with authentication
>systems they develop on their own. He said some governments may
>opt to use companies such as Microsoft or America Online as "the
>bank" that registers people for online usage.
>
>Passport was introduced in 1999 and is the keystone of an array
>of online services the company introduced a year ago, when Gates
>revealed his ambitions for the service.
>
>After privacy advocates attacked the plan and a coalition of
>major corporations formed an alliance to develop standards for
>authentication systems that would work together, Microsoft
>toned down its approach. It now acknowledges that Passport will
>co-exist with other tools.
>
>Forman said his team has also been contacted by the coalition,
>called the Liberty Alliance, and will meet with them at some
>point.
>
>The current version of Passport requires little personal
>information other than an e-mail address, but a new, more secure
>version expected by mid-2003 may be used to store sensitive data
>on Microsoft's network.
>
>Microsoft says it has 200 million people registered to use
>Passport, most of whom signed up because Microsoft told them it
>was needed to use other Microsoft services, such as its free
>Hotmail e-mail service or Windows XP operating system. According
>to Gartner, a research company based in Stamford, Conn., only 2
>percent signed up because of the service's stated purpose: to
>avoid having to use multiple identifications and passwords at
>different Web sites.
>
>Avivah Litan, vice president and research director at Gartner,
>said expanding Passport benefits Microsoft by drawing more Web
>traffic, making its sites more appealing to advertisers and
>enabling the company to charge "click through" fees for online
>sales executed using the service.
>
>But the company may ultimately decide it's not worthwhile to
>boost the service from a tool of convenience for consumers to a
>verification service relied upon by businesses and government.
>
>"Once you start vouching for identity, that makes you liable for
>fraud, that makes you liable for identity theft," Litan said.
>
>Also at the conference, Microsoft announced plans to bring
>Internet access to government services to Mexico through a
>network of kiosks developed with the company's technology.
>
>
>For archives see:
>http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

- --
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 #1132
*************************