Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1142
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, April 26 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1142

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

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 13:07:42 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Notes from yesterday's DNSO conference call.

To better understand my notes from yesterday's conference call:

+-~ Dramatis personae ~-+

aharris: Antonio Harris, ISP/CP
apisanty: Alejandro Pisanty, ICANN Board, Evol-Reform Committee Chair
asvensson: Alexander Svensson, GA alt.Chair
btonkin: Bruce Tonkin, gTLD registrars
ceungwhi: Chun Eung Hwi, Non-commercials
eiriarte: Erick Iriarte, Non-commercials
eporteneuve: Elisabeth Porteneuve, ccTLDs
eshankman: Ellen Shankman, IPC
gdestgery: Glen de St. Gery, DNSO Secretariat
gforsyth: Grant Forsyth, Business
hfeld: Harold Feld, Non-commercials
jsevans: J. Scott Evans, IPC
jsims: Joe Sims, ICANN's outside counsel (JDRP)
gruth: Greg Ruth, ISP/CP
kstubbs: Ken Stubbs, gTLD registrars
mcade: Marilyn Cade, Business
orobles: Oscar Robles, ccTLDs
psheppard: Philip Sheppard, NC Chair
rcochetti: Roger Cochetti, gTLD registries
slynn: Stuart Lynn, ICANN President/CEO
tholmes: Tony Holmes, ISP/CP
troessler: Thomas Roessler, GA Chair

The time stamps are in my local time (UTC+2).
Again: I may have missed parts or points -- sorry for that.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 13:37:06 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Notes from yesterday's DNSO conference call.

On 2002-04-25 13:07:42 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>Again: I may have missed parts or points -- sorry for that.

Actually, I have compared your notes with the hand-written ones I  
made, and I don't think you missed anything important.

- -- 
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, 25 Apr 2002 13:57:35 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Notes from yesterday's DNSO conference call.

ltouton: Louis Touton, ICANN's general counsel 

(Thanks to Dan for catching this!) /// Alexander 

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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 07:30:42 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: http://www.dnso.org/icannatlarge/2002.ICANNATLARGE-Panel-vote.html

On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:27:35AM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2002-04-25 15:24:16 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> 
> >I find that the web forum actually saves time.  Especially when I 
> >want to refer back to an older post. Try the "notify me of 
> >replies" tickbox.
> 
> Personally, I find the opposite to be true.  I can find old messages 
> in my archive considerably faster than in any web forum.

That is true for me, as well.  There is another advantage of email
lists, which, to my mind, is absolutely decisive: email lists
automatically implement a distributed and replicated record of the
discussion.  This means that there is no single central repository where
history can be rewritten.  

In addition, of course, email is the lowest common denominator for
Internet access, and an email base, therefore, will reach the widest
possible audience. 

Of course, a web archive is very useful, and should be a part of any
discussion list.  But there really is no question that email should
be the authoritative base medium.

Kent

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
Technical Support Manager, ICANN            lonesome."
[email-masked],[email-masked]                    -- Mark Twain

- --
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 11:12:56 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: http://www.dnso.org/icannatlarge/2002.ICANNATLARGE-Panel-vote.html

I agree with Kent.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>; "DPF" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:
http://www.dnso.org/icannatlarge/2002.ICANNATLARGE-Panel-vote.html

> On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:27:35AM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > On 2002-04-25 15:24:16 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >
> > >I find that the web forum actually saves time.  Especially when I
> > >want to refer back to an older post. Try the "notify me of
> > >replies" tickbox.
> >
> > Personally, I find the opposite to be true.  I can find old messages
> > in my archive considerably faster than in any web forum.
>
> That is true for me, as well.  There is another advantage of email
> lists, which, to my mind, is absolutely decisive: email lists
> automatically implement a distributed and replicated record of the
> discussion.  This means that there is no single central repository where
> history can be rewritten.
>
> In addition, of course, email is the lowest common denominator for
> Internet access, and an email base, therefore, will reach the widest
> possible audience.
>
> Of course, a web archive is very useful, and should be a part of any
> discussion list.  But there really is no question that email should
> be the authoritative base medium.
>
> Kent
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> Technical Support Manager, ICANN            lonesome."
> [email-masked],[email-masked]                    -- Mark Twain
>
> --
> 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, 25 Apr 2002 17:25:01 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: dot-org

As you may have read before, the Names Council is reviving the  
dot-org task force in order to prvovide comment on the Request for  
Proposals.  ICANN is going to post the draft on 1 May 2002.  DNSO  
comments are due on 13 May, the final RFP will be posted on 20 May  
2002.

I have asked Marc Schneiders to continue to represent the GA on that 
task force.

The time line for the dot-org reassignment, and the referral to the  
DNSO, can be found in the preliminary minutes from the April 22  
board meeting; resolutions 02.57-02.59.

See <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-22apr02.htm> for 
details.
- -- 
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, 25 Apr 2002 09:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Policy-Making

On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:

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

I've posted a working (meaning it's unfinished) paper at:

	http://www.cavebear.com/rw/apfi.htm

		--karl--

- --
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 17:23:41 -0100
From: "Andy Duff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: http://www.dnso.org/icannatlarge/2002.ICANNATLARGE-Panel-vote.html

Kent Crispin wrote (25 April 2002 13:31)

> That is true for me, as well.  There is another advantage of email
> lists, which, to my mind, is absolutely decisive: email lists
> automatically implement a distributed and replicated record of the
> discussion.  This means that there is no single central repository where
> history can be rewritten.
>
> In addition, of course, email is the lowest common denominator for
> Internet access, and an email base, therefore, will reach the widest
> possible audience.

I totally agree with this. In addition, a lot of people around the world
still pay on a time basis for Internet connections, making involvement in a
web-based forum unnecessarily expensive.

> Of course, a web archive is very useful, and should be a part of any
> discussion list.  But there really is no question that email should
> be the authoritative base medium.

Yes, you need web archives, but restricting a mailing list to a web-only
forum potentially excludes some people.

andy duff

- --
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 12:52:37 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: dot-org

1.  There is a concern among some board members that there will be
non-profit front bids, with commerical companies funding a bidder, but
basically it is for the benefit of the for profit....  I share this concern
also.   I recommend that there be a two stage bidding process, select the
non-profit first, and then in the second stage, the non-profit selects the
operator.   ICANN could do whatever due diligence it feels it needs to on
the second stage.

2.  The $35 fee to bid will screen out most of the best non-profits that
might apply for this.   This is a stupid fee, because the winner will be
able to easily pay the cost of the reassignment, and the fee is just to
screen out applicants.   A very insulting response to the NC .org report,
IMO.

  Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 11:25 AM
Subject: [ga] FYI: dot-org

> As you may have read before, the Names Council is reviving the
> dot-org task force in order to prvovide comment on the Request for
> Proposals.  ICANN is going to post the draft on 1 May 2002.  DNSO
> comments are due on 13 May, the final RFP will be posted on 20 May
> 2002.
>
> I have asked Marc Schneiders to continue to represent the GA on that
> task force.
>
> The time line for the dot-org reassignment, and the referral to the
> DNSO, can be found in the preliminary minutes from the April 22
> board meeting; resolutions 02.57-02.59.
>
> See <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-22apr02.htm> for
> details.
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 13:31:15 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] The NC & ICANN Reform

Pretty much as expected, the Names Council is marching to the beat of 
Stuart's drum.  

The Lynn plan called for the establishment of a Generic TLD Names Policy 
Council, as well as a Geographic TLD Names Policy Council.  The Names Council 
is now recommending creating a new advisory body for gTLDs, and creating a 
new advisory body for the ccTLDs.  

To support the activities of these groups, the Names Council has recommended 
that ICANN's policy advisory bodies should be made more effective by the 
provision of full-time staff to support all aspects of policy.  This matches 
the language in the Lynn plan that states:  <<In order for them to be most 
effective, each of these Councils should be supported by the appropriate 
staff.>>  As ICANN already provides plenty of staff support to the 
registrars, gTLDs, ccTLDs, and plans on hiring even more staff support for 
these folks, this NC recommendation adds little to the equation (other than 
an endorsement of Stuart's plan and expansive budget which, of course, makes 
no provision for salaried staff support to the At-Large).  

By stating that ICANN policy advisory bodies should formulate policy 
recommendations based on a clear, bottom-up, consensus process of all 
stakeholders that should be managed by the ICANN Board, the NC is effectively 
declaring the NC and the DNSO defunct (as the NC was formerly responsible for 
the management of the consensus building process) and this function has now 
been elevated upward to the Board level.

The NC Chair is recommending that these advisory bodies should elect or 
select a selection of Board members, and this is in keeping with Stuart's 
plan that the Chairs or designees of these Policy Councils select some of the 
five Ex Officio Trustees.  

By proposing that the Board should be set at a size that balances two goals - 
large enough to be representative, small enough to be functional, the NC 
Chair is making yet another typically vague recommendation that will allow 
Stuart's plan for a 15-member Board of Trustees to go unchallenged.  

Stuart Lynn has argued that "with a properly funded and independent Ombudsman 
in place, there is neither a need or justification for some independent 
review mechanism process that creates a "super-Board" for some purposes."  
The NC Chair is putting forward the following recommendation which comes 
straight from Marilyn Cade's BC position paper: <<Create a committee for 
independent review to over see the work of a professional ombudsman. The 
committee could comprise a designee of the GAC, a designee of the IAB, past 
board members, and an ombudsman.>>  Why anyone would have a committee that 
includes an ombudsman to oversee the work of an ombudsman is beyond me, but 
it points to the fact that the NC Chair will advocate for creating an 
Ombudsman position.  Once such a position is created, Stuart, of course will 
continue to see no justification for some independent review mechanism 
process, and all checks and balances will go right out the window (which is 
perfectly in keeping with Stuart's plan).

Judging from the discussion in yesterday's NC teleconference with Joe Sims, 
Stuart Lynn, and Alejandro Pisanty, the ICANN Staff and the Board Committee 
on Evolution and Reform remain intent on pursuing Stuart's plan (no big 
surprise there) as indicated by the discussion on the "forums" that Stuart 
proposed:

apisanty: looking at advantages of forum approach; the forum approach 
definitely seems to be a very good. 
slynn: forums should be much more flexible.
jsims: notion is that today we have a finite and fixed number of 
constituencies. under forum approach no fixed number of fora. 
apisanty: advantages: you get to hear different voices. if you don't read the 
constituency list, you don't see all the valuable points. e.g. a north 
american business forum, e.g. a geographically diverse small business forum. 
still mechanics to work out. 
jsims: forums would provide input to policy councils in stuart lynn proposal.

Members of the NC quickly moved into lock-step mode with their support of 
this portion of Stuart's plan as well:

mcade: forums feeding into policy-development process is fine, but structure 
must be defined.
tholmes: agree that structure must be defined. 
btonkin: support general dynamic concept
hfeld: need for formal structure. 

All that really remains is for the majority of the Council to come on board 
with regard to the Nominating Committee proposed by Stuart... and as expected 
Stuart had some additional comments on that topic:

slynn: nominating committee intended to focus on problem that we want to make 
sure that icann is seen as effective and credible organization. nominating 
committee is one way of dealing with this; many have pointed to the problem 
of 
accountability of the nominating committee, can be improved.

No one argued this point (even though the ISPCP has gone on record against 
this concept:  <<The ISPCP is opposed to the introduction of a Nominating 
Committee and questions whether such a scheme could ever fulfil the 
requirements of openness and transparency required to gain the support and 
trust of the ICANN community.>>).

These leaves us at a point where no one from any constituency has offered up 
any alternative to the Lynn plan.  By heeding the admonition of the Board's 
Evolution Committee to focus on the Lynn plan as a point of departure for 
their comments, they have been insiduously co-opted into supporting Stuart's 
plan instead of presenting any more reasonable structural alternatives.  

Even the recent preliminary proposal submitted by Karl Auerbach and cited at 
http://www.cavebear.com/rw/apfi.htm adopts the fundamental constructs (termed 
modules) proposed by Stuart.  

When no alternative considerations are put on the table, the Board has no 
option other than to endorse the Lynn Plan as modified by the Evolution 
Committee.  Within the Lynn Plan there is no place accorded for the GA, there 
are no more At-Large directors, and even more power and influence is granted 
to the registries and registrars at the expense of everyone else.  

Is this what you all want?  If not, what are you prepared to do about it?

- --
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 10:31:49 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: dot-org

Thursday, Thursday, April 25, 2002, 9:52:37 AM, James Love wrote:

> 1.  There is a concern among some board members that there will be
> non-profit front bids, with commerical companies funding a bidder, but
> basically it is for the benefit of the for profit....  I share this concern
> also.   I recommend that there be a two stage bidding process, select the
> non-profit first, and then in the second stage, the non-profit selects the
> operator.   ICANN could do whatever due diligence it feels it needs to on
> the second stage.

> 2.  The $35 fee to bid will screen out most of the best non-profits that
> might apply for this.   This is a stupid fee, because the winner will be
> able to easily pay the cost of the reassignment, and the fee is just to
> screen out applicants.   A very insulting response to the NC .org report,
> IMO.

I don't believe the ICANN board is limiting the bids to non-profits in
any fashion.

Nor do I think they should.  .org is not now, nor has it EVER been,
intended or restricted to non-profits, and there is no reason why it
should be run by a non-profit, unless they submit the best possible
proposal for running the registry.

- -- 
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 19:03:04 +0100
From: "Jon Lawrence" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: dot-org

Indeed...Nominet (.uk registry) is run as a non-profit entity.

One could hardly suggest that they're running a best-practice registry.

What's so wrong with the profit motive anyway???

>-- Original Message --
>Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 10:31:49 -0700
>From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
>CC: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: dot-org
>
>
>Thursday, Thursday, April 25, 2002, 9:52:37 AM, James Love wrote:
>
>> 1.  There is a concern among some board members that there will be
>> non-profit front bids, with commerical companies funding a bidder, but
>> basically it is for the benefit of the for profit....  I share this concern
>> also.   I recommend that there be a two stage bidding process, select
the
>> non-profit first, and then in the second stage, the non-profit selects
>the
>> operator.   ICANN could do whatever due diligence it feels it needs to
>on
>> the second stage.
>
>> 2.  The $35 fee to bid will screen out most of the best non-profits that
>> might apply for this.   This is a stupid fee, because the winner will
be
>> able to easily pay the cost of the reassignment, and the fee is just
to
>> screen out applicants.   A very insulting response to the NC .org report,
>> IMO.
>
>I don't believe the ICANN board is limiting the bids to non-profits in
>any fashion.
>
>Nor do I think they should.  .org is not now, nor has it EVER been,
>intended or restricted to non-profits, and there is no reason why it
>should be run by a non-profit, unless they submit the best possible
>proposal for running the registry.
>
>-- 
>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
>

- --
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 16:18:42 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] The NC & ICANN Reform

Alex,

It is certainly possible that some of my statements may be misrepresenting 
the NC's opinion.  But how would we know?  There has been no MP3 recording 
provided, nor any official minutes of the meeting.  The Constituencies 
haven't been exactly forthcoming in presenting their positions, and debate on 
the Council list has been almost non-existent.  

What we do know for a certainty is that the NC, by supporting the creation of 
gTLD and ccTLD policy councils that elect members to the Board (while knowing 
that ICANN management has stated "only those registries and registrars that 
have agreements with ICANN should be eligible for full membership in a Policy 
Council"), has relegated the remaining constituencies to the adjunct 
non-voting forum environment that has no Board representation.

Their comments on the need to avoid "splinter groups" is no more than a 
rehashing of their long-standing argument that an individuals constituency is 
not needed (as they claim that such interests are already represented by the 
current constituencies), and these groups fear an even greater diminution of 
their already rapidly fading power.

While useful proposals may in fact have to differentiate bewteen gTLDs and 
ccTLDs, conferring Policy Council or SO status to these particular groups is 
guaranteeing them de facto Board representation at the expense of all others. 

If I may offer an analogy... would you feel comfortable with all policy 
decisions regarding firearms being made only by the National Rifle 
Association?  Why then would you agree to all GTLD policies being made only 
by the registry and registrar lobbies?  Shouldn't the voice of special 
interest lobbying groups be balanced by the public element... or should these 
lobbyists be running the whole show with only "input" from the public?

- --
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 13:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The NC & ICANN Reform

On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> Even the recent preliminary proposal submitted by Karl Auerbach and cited at 
> http://www.cavebear.com/rw/apfi.htm adopts the fundamental constructs (termed 
> modules) proposed by Stuart.  

I don't quite agree with that assessment.  In my proposal, the functional 
units are entirely distinct and separate legal entities with absolutely no 
common staff, management, directorship etc etc.  They all operate with 
very long "arms-length" relationships with one another.

The Lynn "plan" is a big mushpot - an expansive bureaucratic empire
accountable to no one and with lots of room for opaque processes and 
decision brokering.

In my proposal every module would be accountable in several senses: First,
each module's mission would be constrained, indeed the
operational/administrative modules would be highly constrained.  Second,
most modules would have some clearly defined, and strong form of public
accountability - often with chains that the public could pull.  (This
isn't well spelled out in the existing draft.)  The reason I say "most
modules" is that the protocol administrator, as I see it, really is a
clerical job for the IETF and needs no particular public aspects.  Third, 
the clear separation between modules tends to expose and disclose any 
kinds of collusive action.

By-the-way, a *very* interesting document was just posted by Paul Hoffman.
We usually hear from in the context of internationalized DNS.  He has
written what I believe are some important points of view with regard to
ICANN reform:

	http://www.proper.com/ICANN-notes/dns-root-admin-reform.html

		--karl--

- --
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, 26 Apr 2002 02:34:55 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: dot-org

On 20:03 25/04/02, Jon Lawrence said:
>What's so wrong with the profit motive anyway???

when the money does not go to VRSN/ICANN

- --
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, 26 Apr 2002 10:10:16 +0100
From: "Jon Lawrence" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: dot-org

I agree that Nominet tries to do a good job but until they get some real-time
interfaces and a meaningful accreditation process, I consider them to be
a long way from best practice.

I guess my point is mainly that I believe that a lot of the systemic problems
Nominet faces are caused precisely because of its nonprofit status.

rgds
jon

>-- Original Message --
>Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:00:23 -0700
>From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
>To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
>CC: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: dot-org
>
>
>Jon and all assembly members,
>
>Jon Lawrence wrote:
>
>> Indeed...Nominet (.uk registry) is run as a non-profit entity.
>>
>> One could hardly suggest that they're running a best-practice registry.
>
>  Maybe not, but they are doing a pretty good job of running a good
>registry.  I am not sure what a "Best Practice" registry is.  If it is
>what ICANN has represented as such, I am thankful as are our members
>that Nominet is not doing so...
>
>>
>>
>> What's so wrong with the profit motive anyway???
>
>  Not a dam thing!  I am all for a good healthy profit motive for a
>For-Profit company.  Hell I run one! >;)  But if such and entity
>is like Enron, Afilias, Nuestar, Author Anderson, Global Crossing,
>Microsoft, ect. ,ect....  Than there is allot wrong with that type
>of profit motive.
>
>>
>>
>> >-- Original Message --
>> >Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 10:31:49 -0700
>> >From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
>> >Reply-To: [email-masked]
>> >To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
>> >CC: [email-masked]
>> >Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: dot-org
>> >
>> >
>> >Thursday, Thursday, April 25, 2002, 9:52:37 AM, James Love wrote:
>> >
>> >> 1.  There is a concern among some board members that there will be
>> >> non-profit front bids, with commerical companies funding a bidder,
but
>> >> basically it is for the benefit of the for profit....  I share this
>concern
>> >> also.   I recommend that there be a two stage bidding process, select
>> the
>> >> non-profit first, and then in the second stage, the non-profit selects
>> >the
>> >> operator.   ICANN could do whatever due diligence it feels it needs
>to
>> >on
>> >> the second stage.
>> >
>> >> 2.  The $35 fee to bid will screen out most of the best non-profits
>that
>> >> might apply for this.   This is a stupid fee, because the winner will
>> be
>> >> able to easily pay the cost of the reassignment, and the fee is just
>> to
>> >> screen out applicants.   A very insulting response to the NC .org
report,
>> >> IMO.
>> >
>> >I don't believe the ICANN board is limiting the bids to non-profits
in
>> >any fashion.
>> >
>> >Nor do I think they should.  .org is not now, nor has it EVER been,
>> >intended or restricted to non-profits, and there is no reason why it
>> >should be run by a non-profit, unless they submit the best possible
>> >proposal for running the registry.
>> >
>> >--
>> >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
>> >
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>Regards,
>
>--
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
>CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>E-Mail [email-masked]
>Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>

- --
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, 26 Apr 2002 02:20:30 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: dot-org

Friday, Friday, April 26, 2002, 2:10:16 AM, Jon Lawrence wrote:

> I agree that Nominet tries to do a good job but until they get some real-time
> interfaces and a meaningful accreditation process, I consider them to be
> a long way from best practice.

> I guess my point is mainly that I believe that a lot of the systemic problems
> Nominet faces are caused precisely because of its nonprofit status.

I couldn't agree more.  There is no profit motive to drive them to
innovate.

- -- 
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, 26 Apr 2002 13:29:27 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf minutes April 24, 2002

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020424.NCteleconf-minutes.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

        DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 24 April 2002 - minutes

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 April 2002.

Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020424.NCteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:

Peter de Blanc         ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Oscar Robles/
Elisabeth Porteneuve
Elisabeth Porteneuve   ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay     ccTLD

Philip Sheppard        Business
Marilyn Cade           Business
Grant Forsyth          Business
Greg Ruth              ISPCP
Antonio Harris         ISPCP
Tony Holmes            ISPCP
Philipp Grabensee      Registrars  absent, apologies
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars
Roger Cochetti         gTLD
Richard Tindal         gTLD  absent, apologies, proxy to Roger Cochetti
Cary Karp              gTLD  absent, apologies, proxy to Richard Tindal,
Roger Cochetti
Ellen Shankman         IP
Laurence Djolakian     IP
J. Scott Evans         IP
Harold Feld            NCDNH
Chun Eung Hwi          NCDNH
Erick Iriate           NCDNH

17 Names Council Members

Thomas Roessler        invited as GA Chair
Alexander Svensson     invited as GA Alternate Chair

Glen de Saint Géry     NC Secretary
Alix Guillard       MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat

Invited ICANN staff and Board member

Alejandro Pisanty      Vice Chairman ICANN Board
Lynn Stuart            ICANN CEO
Louis Touton           ICANN senior Counsel
Joe Sims               ICANN senior Counsel

Due to a technical failure there was no MP3 recording.

Quorum present at 14:10 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during
summer time in the northern hemisphere).

Philip Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference.

Approval of the Agenda
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020424.NCteleconf-agenda.html

The Chair added two items:

     1. Waiting List Service issue referred by the Board to the Names
     Council.
     2. Request to the Names Council to comment on Request for Proposal
     (RFP) materials for Dot ORG.

The agenda was approved.

Agenda item 1: Discussion points on v6 conclusions

Ph. Sheppard proposed adoption of the clarifications made in v6 and started
discussion on the e-mail input from the constituencies.

   * Recommendation 1 - Mission.
     "users of the global internet"

     The gTLD Registry constituency has not come back to Council with new
     wording so it was decided to accept the wording as it stands and note
     the gTLD Registry constituency derogation. The gTLD Registry
     constituency felt that it should not reflect the content of public
     comment in the ICANN mission but that the more complex structure of
     Registry, Registrar Registrant relationship should be captured.

   * Recommendation 9 - Policy making.
     "all stakeholders"

     The Business Constituency supported the proposed wording believing the
     term stakeholders was clear and in itself limiting.

     The gTLD Registry constituency proposed: "led by those most affected by
     the consensus".

     Discussion followed centering around the meaning of "led" but this
     change was not supported. Agreed to adopt the phrase:
     ICANN policy advisory bodies should formulate policy recommendations
     based on a bottom-up, consensus process of all stakeholders.

     The gTLD Registry constituency's derogation is noted.

     Bruce Tonkin said that it was important the process was clear and J.
     Scott Evans said that It is important for the Board to be active in the
     consensus process. A new sentence was adopted:
     There must be a clear process and that process should be managed by the
     ICANN Board.

     It was agreed that the process of policy making needed further
     discussion and that there should be a future work session on this.

   * Recommendation 12 - ccTLDs.

     Received broad support from the Business and Registry and Non
     Commercial with the latter adding, provided there is a discussion on
     how policy is formulated.

   * Recommendation 13 - gTLDs.

     The gTLD Registry constituency felt that recommendations 12 and 13
     should be linked, adding:
     "which would be comparable to the body envisaged above"

     Elisabeth Porteneuve disagreed saying that there was no symmetry
     between ccTLDs and gTLDs in that gTLDs have mechanisms to make policy
     such as ICANN and the DNSO while the ccTLDs only operate in their
     national community.

     It was agreed to adopt 12 and 13 as re-drafted:

   * Recommendation 12 - ccTLDs.

     Create a new advisory body for the ccTLDs. This would need means of
     collaborative decision making with the gTLD advisory body on relevant
     areas of policy.

   * Recommendation 13 - gTLDs.

     Create a new advisory body for gTLDs. This would need means of
     collaborative decision making with the ccTLD advisory body on relevant
     areas of policy.

     The Non Commercial Constituency wanted it noted that it does not
     support 13 without added detail on user representation.

     Time limits did not allow for discussion of new items.

Agenda item 4: Discussion with Stuart Lynn, Alejandro Pisanty, Joe Sims

Philip Sheppard formally welcomed Stuart Lynn, Alejandro Pisanty and Joe
Sims on the call, and asked Stuart what he hoped the dialogue would produce.

Stuart Lynn said that he appreciated the time spent, and careful discussion
of the Names Council towards the future decision making process. The purpose
of the reform document was to stimulate community discussion and move
forward rapidly to debate. If there is criticism it is aimed at the process
and not the participants. Divisions in the ICANN community are recognised.
The concern with regard to the Names Council is that it brings together
different kinds of constituencies greatly varied within which makes the task
difficult. It is difficult for an organisation to change itself, and it is
important to find out how a clearer view and a coming through process can be
achieved to bring about change.

Alejandro Pisanty said that it was important to find out key expectations,
to hear from Names Council members, read constituency positions and drafts
and find out where there is agreement and disagreement.

Joe Sims said he was there to listen.

Questions from Names Council members:

     Marilyn Cade: Could you share with us feedback on areas of support and
     no support?
     Stuart answered that the diversity of private and public opinions made
     it difficult to answer. Most criticism and misunderstanding was about
     government representation, nominations, public interest representation
     and government funding.

     Harold Feld: The Non Commercial constituency is thinking along two
     separate lines:
     a. delineate what lies outside the scope of ICANN
     b. consider options such as the International Telecommunication Union
     (ITU).

     Tony Holmes commented that his experience in working with the ITU did
     not encourage him at all to recommend this approach. Philip Sheppard
     commented that his experience in general with inter-governmental
     organisations was that they were universally slower and less efficient
     than even the present ICANN structure. There was no support from other
     constituencies for the ITU proposal.

     Stuart Lynn said that it is important to arrive at a documented process
     that works. Functions that lie outside of ICANN can be considered if
     assurance is given that a changing internet can be anticipated. The
     concept of a thin ICANN concentrates on issues different groups care
     about. There is a need therefore to define realistically and flexibly
     what should be inside ICANN.

     Government Advisory Committee (GAC) involvement was discussed and
     Stuart Lynn hoped that there would be specific suggestions for
     strengthening the interaction with the GAC. Tony Harris said that not
     all governments by a long way represent public interests. Stuart Lynn
     commented that individuals talk on their own behalf to get things done
     and are not representative of the wider group. For example, it is odd
     that universities are hardly involved in the NCDNHC and a distinction
     should be made between representativeness and representative models.
     Stuart favoured a multiplicity of entities to represent users.

     Tony Holmes enquired about the April 29 deadline and the envisaged
     planning thereafter.

     Stuart Lynn and Alejandro Pisanty stated that an extensive and concrete
     proposal for Bucharest was intended.

     Ellen Shankman asked about the role of the nominating committee and who
     would sit on the Board?

     Stuart Lynn replied that the nominating committee was intended to focus
     on making ICANN an overall effective credible organisation that can
     move fast.

     Tony Harris asked about funding saying that he saw good support for a
     model using a small proportion of registrant fees to fund ICANN. The BC
     had proposed this at Accra.

     Philip Sheppard reminded the call of the NC recommendation that core
     ICANN funds should indeed come from the revenues of Registrants as they
     do today - all that is in question is the transmission mechanism and
     related contractual arrangements.

     Alejandro Pisanty said there needs to be a clear model, how it should
     be implemented and what support it has.

     Stuart Lynn was of the opinion that funding in itself would not solve
     the problems as such. He agreed with an analysis posted by Elisabeth
     Porteneuve that conference fees could only ever provide a small part of
     funding and they were not therefore a key issue .

     Harold Feld raised the point of involvement in the ICANN process. Some
     saw no necessity to be involved as the reward for involvement was often
     unclear.

     Stuart Lynn considered this an important point; some do not get
     involved because the ICANN process puts them off. The end user often
     delegates policy issues and the need for involvement is not great. If
     ICANN is successful, there should be little need for involvement

     Philip Sheppard asked for opinions on the workable size of the Board,
     saying the key question is the balance between a board big enough to be
     representative and small enough to be workable. If the board is large
     and has an executive committee the key is to find a group that adds to
     efficiency while not concentrating political power unfairly.

     Alejandro Pisanty said any input with regard to a Board with a smaller
     executive committee would be welcome. He agreed the concept could
     streamline and/or putt power in the hands of a few.

     Stuart Lynn said that his concept of forums was to add flexibility and
     increase the diversity of voices advising the Board. Council members
     were sceptical about the process of unstructured fora and any
     meaningful impact they would have on policy development. How would
     forums add to efficiency? The GA after all was intended to be that
     broad group. If it does not work as intended, is it not better to
     reform it so it does?

     Stuart Lynn, Alejandro Pisanty, and Joe Sims said that it had been an
     important, helpful discussion. Philip Sheppard thanked the invited
     ICANN members for their valuable participation.

Other Business

  1. Waiting List Service (WLS) issue referred by the Board to the Names
     Council.

     Louis Touton explained that on March 25, Verisign had requested a
     Registry agreement amendment for .com and .net. There have been
     increasing concerns about deletes. The Board is looking for assurance
     on the WLS recommendation that it will be made in the general context
     of the delete issue.

     Philip Sheppard said there were 4 options:

     1. ignore the request
     2. form a new task force
     3. refer it to the existing Transfer task force
     4. the whole Names Council to work on it.

     It was decided to refer it to the existing Transfer Task Force. It was
     agreed that the present work of the task force should not be slowed
     down. Timeline: Work Status report June 10, 2002.

     Decision 1: Refer the WLS issue to the Transfer Task Force.

  2. Request to the Names Council to comment on Request for Proposal (RFP)
     materials for Dot ORG.

     Philip Sheppard acknowledged the request to the Names Council on the
     RFP for Dot Org. He recommended reactivating the dot ORG task force
     with the addition of members to replace Milton Mueller NCDNHC and
     Guillermo Carey ISPC, and the ISP if they would like to nominate.
     Elisabeth Porteneuve was chosen as the task force interim chair to act
     as a facilitator to start the work immediately as the deadline was
     extremely tight.

     Decision 2: reactivate dot ORG task Force for the single task of
     providing comments to the NC on the Dot Org RFP.

AOB

Marilyn Cade proposed a work session on policy development to be scheduled
for May 2, 2002.

Philip Sheppard concluded and confirmed the next teleconference on May 2,
2002 at 15:00 Paris time

The teleconference ended at 17:10

Next NC teleconference May 2 at 15:00 Paris time, 13:00 UTC.

     See all past agendas and minutes at
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/2002calendardnso.html
     and calendar of the NC meetings at
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-calendar.html

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

- --
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 #1142
*************************