Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1140
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, April 25 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1140

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

Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IANA & the .US Sell-Out

Danny et. al.

Life is not so quick and easy to pass so much judgment.
Keep in mind that we are still in the experimental stages of this great 
adventure commonly refered to as the internet.

I do not disagree with the sentiments expressed here but I also realize 
that we can learn from others mistakes and that I am well pleased that at 
least they move forward and we are allowed to criticize.

I can do it better but as of yet no one has asked me to.

Eric

> In his article ".US Sell-Out Begins Tomorrow", Bret Fausett notes that
> the  "usTLD Policy Council" that Neustar pledged to create is not yet
> operational. 
>  
> 
> This begs the question:  How prudent was the IANA's "emergency
> redelegation"  of the .us TLD, and as a matter of policy can we as an
> organization allow for  such redelegations without full and due
> process?  
> 
> Unlike prior redelegations, wherein IANA has held that it is charged
> with  seeking input from persons significantly affected by the
> transfer,  particularly those within the nation or territory which the
> ccTLD has been  established to benefit, this redelegation involved no
> such dialogue with the  American Internet Community.  In this
> particular case, the U.S. Government  dictated to the IANA that a
> relegation was required, and the IANA implemented  such redelegation
> immediately without recourse to standard process.  Would  the IANA bow
> to any such similar demand from any other government entity?   Never.
> 
> The IANA (as noted in ICP-1) will make the view of the relevant
> government  entity "a major consideration in any TLD
> delegation/transfer discussions",  but it is not to be the *only*
> consideration.  
> 
> Having denied the American Internet Community the opportunity to offer
> input  into the process, we are now stuck with an untenable situation
> in which  short, memorable names that truly belong in the public realm
> are now to be  sold off to speculators without the prior benefit of
> appropriate policy  council guidance on the issue.  Had public input
> been requested prior to the  redelegation, many such issues would long
> ago have already been resolved.
> 
> To whom is this IANA accountable?  Can we hold them to due process 
> requirements... or does due process go out the window when the US
> Government  makes its demands?  Is the ICANN Board responsible for the
> IANA decisions?   Can an IANA decision be revoked, or reconsidered? 
> Are there any checks and  balances that pertain to the IANA function,
> or is it empowered to act without  notice-and-comment provisions?  
> 
> Any reform of the ICANN should include a reform of the IANA... either
> we  consistently abide by our policies, or we become a farce to the
> rest of the  world.  Ask any ccTLD manager what they think of such
> "emergency 
> redelegations"...
> 
> 
>   
> --
> 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: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 19:26:29 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IANA & the .US Sell-Out

Tuesday, Tuesday, April 23, 2002, 3:15:21 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Having denied the American Internet Community the opportunity to offer input 
> into the process, we are now stuck with an untenable situation in which 
> short, memorable names that truly belong in the public realm are now to be 
> sold off to speculators without the prior benefit of appropriate policy 
> council guidance on the issue.  Had public input been requested prior to the 
> redelegation, many such issues would long ago have already been resolved.

As most of your contributions, this too is less than honest.

The facts are that the USG DOC's NTIA did in fact have a rather
lengthy and open public comment process on this issue, and it was
widely publicized, including on this very list.

As for the issue of speculation, you assume that removing speculators
from the market is a good thing.  I say that any such restriction
would be an unfair restraint of trade.

- -- 
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: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:29:30 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] IANA & the .US Sell-Out

William,

The issue is not whether a particular government has reached out to its own 
internet community, but rather whether the IANA has communicated with that 
Internet community.  The IANA is not authorized to simply take the word of 
any government entity and to proceed on an "emergency redelegation" solely on 
the basis of that government's claims without some semblance of due process 
that provides for necessary notice-and-comment.  Where was the publication 
for comment of the IANA consideration of the proposed transfer?

With regard to your latter comment, I have neither assumed nor stated that 
"removing speculators from the market is a good thing".  It would have been a 
"good thing" to have had a Policy Council consider the geographic identifiers 
issue prior to the open launch of the usTLD, so that such names could have 
been properly reserved for the relevant local communities.  Had the IANA 
communicated with the American Internet Community subsequent to the NTIA 
selection of Neustar as the contractor, it is likely that this issue and 
others that pertained to Neustar's proposed Policy Council would have 
surfaced.
- --
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, 23 Apr 2002 21:07:04 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IANA & the .US Sell-Out

Tuesday, Tuesday, April 23, 2002, 8:29:30 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> With regard to your latter comment, I have neither assumed nor stated that 
> "removing speculators from the market is a good thing".  It would have been a 
> "good thing" to have had a Policy Council consider the geographic identifiers 
> issue prior to the open launch of the usTLD, so that such names could have 
> been properly reserved for the relevant local communities.  Had the IANA 
> communicated with the American Internet Community subsequent to the NTIA 
> selection of Neustar as the contractor, it is likely that this issue and 
> others that pertained to Neustar's proposed Policy Council would have 
> surfaced.

Community names are already delegated and reserved under the existing
.us structure, Danny.

http://www.ci.fresno.ca.us/

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:13:19 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] IANA & the .US Sell-Out

William,

Geographic identifiers are more than names of municipalities.  Examples would 
include names of our national parks and historic monuments and edifices.  
- --
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, 23 Apr 2002 21:48:00 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IANA & the .US Sell-Out

Tuesday, Tuesday, April 23, 2002, 9:13:19 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> William,

> Geographic identifiers are more than names of municipalities.  Examples would 
> include names of our national parks and historic monuments and edifices.  

And they are all eligible for .gov names, or if they are state they
can get a domain under the state gov delegations.

There is no reason to believe that Yosemite National Park should have
the exclusive right to use the term yosemite.us

Again, the dns is not a directory service, that is what the search
engines are for.

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:56:30 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: anyone notice fallout from this?

John,

Common mistake, but it seems that you've got things mixed up. There is a
namespace within each root.  Specific namespace within specific roots
doesn't conflict with specific namespace in another specific root - that is
unless someone is foolish enough to try to query multiple roots for
resolution service. There is one authoritative root, one USG root and many
"competitive/alternative/etc" roots. Most people choose to view the USG root
as being authoritative.

These facts render your aspersions false. If you wish to govern the
resources and coordination of a different root differently, that's fine. If
you wish to participate in the management of this one, that's also fine.
Just please, try not to get the two confused as it really slows down the
other substantive work of this assembly.

- -rwr

> The internet has one namespace, not one root. If someone goes and
> deliberatly
> causes instability by creating collisions, that is wrong. If someone (or
> company)
> is hell-bent at destroying any and all competition and is willing to
> destabilize
> the internet by moving an entire ccTLD to gtld servers that are on an
> illegitmate
> colliding version of a TLD, that too is wrong.
>
> 1: The Neulevel BIZ is illegitimate because it was not the first to
> be in continuous operation. In the opinion of a growing number of
> people, ICANN and Neulevel perpetrated a theft.
>
> 2: The reason that they moved .US gtld servers under .BIZ was
> to try to harm the competiton by trying to force the ever-growing
> list of ISPs using inclusive namespace root servers to switch
> back. They failed.
>
> 3: Typical of ICANN apologists, the poster tries to take an act
> of sabatoge and theft (perpetrated by you know who) that was intended
> to try and stamp out legitimate businesses, and turns around
> and tries to blame the intended victims.
>
> Sorry - wrong answer, but thank you for playing
>
> Next???
>
> ---
> AGN Domain Name Services : http://www.adns.net
> Censorship-Free GA list : http://dns-o.org/mailman/listinfo/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
>

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:58:28 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] usTLD Policy Council Formed

Danny - is there a specific reason why there are subtle differences between
this list and the official one that you provide a link to?

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 6:50 PM
Subject: [ga] usTLD Policy Council Formed

> Neustar has today announced the formation of the usTLD Policy Council
> http://www.nic.us/policies/docs/dotus_policy_council.pdf
>
> Members of the Council are:
> Chair -- Jonathan Hudis, (American Intellectual Property Law Association)
> Tom Cunningham (BulkRegister)
> Juan Otero (National League of Cities)
> Michael Palage (Chairman of the ICANN Registrars Constituency)
> Joe Rubin (US Chamber of Commerce)
> Larry Singer (Nat. Assoc. of State Chief Information Officers)
> Claudette Tennant (American Library Association)
> David Wascher (TheRegistry at Info Avenue)
> James Casey (Neustar)
> Tom McGarry (Neustar)
>
> Fully half of the Council is drawn from the registrar community...
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:41:24 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Policy-Making

If any of you have any suggestions to make about general ICANN 
policy making, or want to emphasize (or elaborate on) anything you 
said before, please come forward with your suggestions now.

The next names council call is scheduled for May 2, and it will deal 
precisely wiht this topic.

Comments on the Lynn proposal's "forum" approach would also be most 
welcome.

- -- 
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: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 18:58:24 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] MP3 technical failure

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

The DNSO Secretariat technical staff apologizes for the MP3
recording failure of the April 24 Names Council teleconference.
This failure was due to an inadequate microphone position.

There will be double recordings made in the future.

With our sincere apologies
Regards,

DNSO Secretariat technical staff.

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:28:02 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 technical failure

This is completely inexcusable.

DNSO Secretariat wrote:

>[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
>[To: [email-masked]]
>
>The DNSO Secretariat technical staff apologizes for the MP3
>recording failure of the April 24 Names Council teleconference.
>This failure was due to an inadequate microphone position.
>
>There will be double recordings made in the future.
>
Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:36:52 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 technical failure

After the first MP3 failure on March 22, the DNSO Secretariat stated:  We 
will take care that this does not happen again in the future.  Now we get 
another excuse.  

When Bret Fausett was handling the recordings we never had this frequency of 
failure (and he wasn't being paid to provide such service).  Almost all of 
the DNSO's current budget goes toward paying for Secretariat services, and 
this purported need for "professional" as opposed to volunteer services 
accounts for the high level of dues that are levied on the constituencies.  

The NCDNHC, that has struggled and failed to pay these onerous charges for 
such professional support, is currently scheduled to lose their right to vote 
in the Council on or around May 13.   

I'm sure that they will be delighted to know that their expulsion is tied to 
the perceived "need" to guarantee the level of erratic support that is 
currently being provided.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:47:49 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 technical failure

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
To: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 technical failure

> This is completely inexcusable.
> 
> DNSO Secretariat wrote:
> 
> >[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
> >[To: [email-masked]]
> >
> >The DNSO Secretariat technical staff apologizes for the MP3
> >recording failure of the April 24 Names Council teleconference.
> >This failure was due to an inadequate microphone position.
> >
> >There will be double recordings made in the future.
> >
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

This is a common theme - ICANN and now Names
Council always mysteriously loose the connection, 
audio recordings and other "live" records of the
proceedings. You would think that after this has happened
many times before, that they would fix it, unless there is
a reason that they dont want an audio record of the
proceedings....

AGN Domain Name Services : http://www.adns.net
Censorship-Free GA list : http://dns-o.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:04:20 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 technical failure

DNSO Secretariat wrote:
> This failure was due to an inadequate microphone position.

Did the recording come out poorly or not at all? If it's just a bad or faint
recording, I'd be interested in listening to it anyway.

      -- Bret

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:05:49 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 technical failure

Just slightly more than four weeks ago the lack of a teleconference 
recording was blamed on a "power" issue. This time round, the cause is 
"inadequate microphone position".  One wonders what it will be the next 
time.

Furthermore, am I right in assuming that the DNSO Secratariat cannot 
charge for what they did not provide?  Such that, the Secratariat cannot 
bill the DNSO for any work on the two failed teleconference recordings?

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> This is completely inexcusable.
>
> DNSO Secretariat wrote:
>
>> [To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
>> [To: [email-masked]]
>>
>> The DNSO Secretariat technical staff apologizes for the MP3
>> recording failure of the April 24 Names Council teleconference.
>> This failure was due to an inadequate microphone position.
>>
>> There will be double recordings made in the future.
>>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
>
> -- 
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:14:43 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Devolution versus Evolution

The Regional Internet Registry Joint Statement on ICANN Evolution and Reform 
cited at 
http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/rir-statement-24042002.pdf makes 
the following statement:

8.  The RIRs are not necessarily committed to a model of ICANN as a single 
body with responsibilities in the areas of domain names, Root DNS Server 
operations, Internet addresses, Internet protocol numbers.  The RIRs would 
like to understand the implications of a devolution of this role into up to 
four distinct entities with responsibilities in each of these areas, as an 
alternative approach to a single ICANN entity.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:28:57 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 technical failure

Does the ICANN board make MP3 files of its telephone board meetings?
Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Bret Fausett" <[email-masked]>
To: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 technical failure

> DNSO Secretariat wrote:
> > This failure was due to an inadequate microphone position.
>
> Did the recording come out poorly or not at all? If it's just a bad or
faint
> recording, I'd be interested in listening to it anyway.
>
>       -- Bret
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:40:51 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 technical failure

James Love wrote:
> Does the ICANN board make MP3 files of its telephone board meetings?

ICANN has a standing offer from me to do an mp3 webcast of its
teleconferences for free.

    -- Bret

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:13:35 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 technical failure

Wednesday, Wednesday, April 24, 2002, 12:40:51 PM, Bret Fausett wrote:

> James Love wrote:
>> Does the ICANN board make MP3 files of its telephone board meetings?

> ICANN has a standing offer from me to do an mp3 webcast of its
> teleconferences for free.

Yes, there is no reason for the DNSO or ICANN not to have a backup
plan in place for this.  The easiest way is to have someone like Bret
on a listen port recording it, and possibly Webcasting it live even.

All of which can be done very easily.

- -- 
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: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 12:54:43 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  http://www.dnso.org/icannatlarge/2002.ICANNATLARGE-Panel-vote.html

On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:02:25 +1200, Joop Teernstra
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>At 09:19 22/04/02 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>>Now that the DNSO Secretariat has provided a website address to monitor the
>>activities at icannatlarge.com, perhaps the DNSO could also provide a forum
>>for the candidates that are standing for election -- so far all that I have
>>noted are candidate statements with absolutely no debate whatsoever... the
>>classic "beauty contest".
>
>I have to agree in part with Danny.
>In the haste to satisfy those who pushed so hard for early elections, there 
>is no time alotted for debate.
>There is not even enough time for all the candidates to post their 
>introductions.

Actually IMO time is not the problem but the constant refusal of those
in charge of icannatlarge.com to establish a mailing list which is
notified to all members.

It takes me 20 times as long to try and read all the forum posts as it
would for me to receive those posts by e-mail.  I still do not
understand why those in charge will not establish a mailing list to
allow members to communicate with each other.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 #1140
*************************