Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1157
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Friday, May 3 2002             Volume 01 : Number 1157

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

Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 12:20:49 +0100
From: "Pare,D" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

I have been quietly monitoring this list for some time. I would like to express my support for Mr. James Love's call for action.
 
Daniel Pare

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Fri 5/3/2002 1:14 AM 
	To: GA List 
	Cc: 
	Subject: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

	PLEASE INDICATE YOUR PREFERENCE  BELOW. 

	Mr. James Love, a member in good standing  of the DNSO's General Assembly, has made a call for action, specifically stating:

	 "I move that the GA poll its members, to record its views on whether or not the US Department of Commerce should have an open competition for the services now provided by ICANN. The rationale for asking for a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the initial terms of reference for ICANN, and is proposing even further changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet community. The rebid would allow the NTIA to consider alternatives to the current ICANN plan for managing key Internet resources.

	The vote should be taken within 10 days."

	Seconds: John Palmer, Danny Younger. 

	Members who have indicated their agreement with taking a Vote:- 

	1.	James Love (Proponent) 
	2.	John Palmer (Second) 
	3.	Danny Younger (Second) 
	4.	Jeanette Hoffman 
	5.	Joanna Lane 
	6.	Sotiris Sotiropoulos 
	7.	Karl Auerbach 
	8.	. 
	9.	. 
	10.	

	Members who have indicated their disagreement with taking a Vote:- 

	1.	
	2.	
	3.	

- --
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, 03 May 2002 07:26:33 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

Thomas Roessler wrote:-
> Bzzzt, wrong procedure.  As I said earlier, please get a reasonable
> motion onto the table first.  Then show support.  Then vote.  You're
> still at step 1.

Thomas,
I understand that you may not welcome an ordinary member taking the
initiative to foster consensus on an issue, but I find your tone
unnecessarily hostile. The GA must have procedures to produce Motions, ones
that are participatory, accessible to people, transparent, that mobilize
necessary resources and expertise, are efficient and effective, that
engender and command respect and trust, that encourage members to define and
take ownership of recommended actions, that are enabling and facilitative,
regulatory rather than controlling, service oriented and above all,
accountable to the public trust.

You, on the other hand, are insisting, in a rather high handed and
autocratic fashion, that nobody may speak, ask for a show of hands, suggest
a schedule, or even have a general discussion on this issue (and presumably
any other) unless a formal Motion is put on the table first.

Well, I don't know which GA list you're reading, but the feedback I have at
the time of writing, indicates that more discussion and debate would be
welcomed before a Vote is taken, but that Jamie is certainly not standing
alone, and that there is considerable interest in taking this issue forward,
whether or not a "reasonable" (whatever that means) Motion is currently on
the table. I fail to understand how your shutting both the Poll and the
discussion down could be moving this issue forward.

Some concern has been expressed that this matter is being "rushed through",
and it may be that over the course of the next 48 hours or so while the Poll
is underway, that a natural resistance to go straight to a vote will set in,
(or maybe not) and that Jamie will not elicit (or may) the necessary show of
hands to proceed straight to a Vote.

My sense is that he will not, but that if the schedule is extended to allow
more time for debate, to be more in keeping with the Minimum Times stated in
the Best Practices Documents, then he will have the support for Vote that he
seeks. That's the purpose of posting the Time Line Guide for comment at this
stage, because obviously, the short time frame is a factor in the decision
to go for the vote or not at this time.

On the other hand, you would have us sit here doing nothing while waiting
for your approval of a Motion that has not even been written yet? It just
doesn't make sense to me, sorry.

<rest of inflammatory and derogatory language deleted>

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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, 03 May 2002 08:10:32 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

OK. THe cc: list has gotten long enough and it is Friaday and I haven't
posted this month so if everyone will permit I will make a suggestion.

As far as I understand the current situation, Thomas is asking for
a) a formulation of a reasonable motion
b) discussion of the motion
c) vote

Hard to argue with proper procedure. What we seem to be caught on is
step a): formulation.
Since I have used up my own personal quota for the month and since I
have my own agenda (see disclosure below) may I request on behalf of the
GA that Thomas provide us with text of a reasonable motion?  Thomas, I
have worked with you on occasion and see what you do here on a regular
basis with the GA. Can we presume upon you to step up perform this task?
It would serve to clear the logjam.

disclosure: since I was a writer of the compliant bid in opposition to
the ICANN team last time round, my calling for a re-bid could have the
appearance of having an 'agenda'.

Dan Steinberg
Synthssis: Law & Technology

Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 
> On 2002-05-02 21:11:34 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
> >The following table sets out what is believed to be a reasonable
> >guideline as to the timing of the various events that need to
> >take place in order for the whole Assembly to vote on this issue
> >within a 10 day period .
> 
> Bzzzt, wrong procedure.  As I said earlier, please get a reasonable
> motion onto the table first.  Then show support.  Then vote.  You're
> still at step 1.
> 
> At this time, there's no need for a poll on the question if the GA
> should vote.
> 
> Entering broken record mode once again: Propose a motion.  Put it on
> the table for _discussion_ (you know, that thing with listening to
> others, changing the proposal, trying to find consensus,
> respectfully dealing with others' opinions - all that stuff you
> folks claim to have been fighting for in the ICANN process).
> Ideally, that discussion will already show that there is reasonable
> interest in having a vote on the motion which ultimately evolves.
> If needed, one may also ask for a short show of hands in order to
> estimate interest in the motion _after_ it's on the table, i.e.,
> after it has been discussed.  In the end, vote.
> 
> James's current attitude - namely, that the only private opinion
> which should matter on this GA is his, and that his motion should be
> put to vote without cumbersome discussions for that reason - is not
> compatible with this process.
> 
> James is free to follow the process I have outlined several times
> now.  In that case, we may end up with a vote - the discussion will
> show.
> 
> Alternatively, James may continue to operate according to his
> current attitude.  In that case, he won't get a vote any time soon,
> but he'll surely continue to waste his, my, and everyone else's
> time.
> 
> To make this crystal clear, these are the options available:
> 
>  - follow process
>  - shut up
>  - continue with the present waste of time and ressources
>  - impeach me
> 
> Options 1 and 4 are the only ones which may lead to a vote.
> 
> Continuing with the present waste of time and ressources is the
> worst of all these options.
> 
> Have a nice week-end,
> --
> 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: Fri, 3 May 2002 08:24:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

I beleive Jamie *has* proposed a text, hasn't he?

On Fri, 3 May 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-05-02 21:11:34 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
> >The following table sets out what is believed to be a reasonable  
> >guideline as to the timing of the various events that need to  
> >take place in order for the whole Assembly to vote on this issue  
> >within a 10 day period .
> 
> Bzzzt, wrong procedure.  As I said earlier, please get a reasonable  
> motion onto the table first.  Then show support.  Then vote.  You're 
> still at step 1.
> 
> At this time, there's no need for a poll on the question if the GA  
> should vote.
> 
> Entering broken record mode once again: Propose a motion.  Put it on 
> the table for _discussion_ (you know, that thing with listening to  
> others, changing the proposal, trying to find consensus,  
> respectfully dealing with others' opinions - all that stuff you  
> folks claim to have been fighting for in the ICANN process).   
> Ideally, that discussion will already show that there is reasonable  
> interest in having a vote on the motion which ultimately evolves.   
> If needed, one may also ask for a short show of hands in order to  
> estimate interest in the motion _after_ it's on the table, i.e.,  
> after it has been discussed.  In the end, vote.
> 
> James's current attitude - namely, that the only private opinion  
> which should matter on this GA is his, and that his motion should be 
> put to vote without cumbersome discussions for that reason - is not  
> compatible with this process.  
> 
> James is free to follow the process I have outlined several times  
> now.  In that case, we may end up with a vote - the discussion will  
> show.
> 
> Alternatively, James may continue to operate according to his  
> current attitude.  In that case, he won't get a vote any time soon,  
> but he'll surely continue to waste his, my, and everyone else's  
> time.
> 
> 
> To make this crystal clear, these are the options available:
> 
>  - follow process
>  - shut up
>  - continue with the present waste of time and ressources
>  - impeach me
> 
> Options 1 and 4 are the only ones which may lead to a vote. 
> 
> Continuing with the present waste of time and ressources is the  
> worst of all these options.
> 
> Have a nice week-end,
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

- --
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, 3 May 2002 08:27:03 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 3:33 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract
>
> Jamie,
>
> Was ICANN put in place by the sole action of the US DoC ?
>
> Elisabeth Porteneuve

     Pretty much in the beginning....  The US DoC wants to have an
international framework for managing the DNS, and the White Paper and the
handpicked ICANN board was the Clinton Administration solution.  After the
Lynn proposal, there is a big debate over where everything should go next.
What will be ICANN 2?   We would like to see the various DoC ICANN contracts
rebid, so ICANN 1 can present its final version of the Lynn/Board/staff
plan, and others can present different ideas.   Right now there are many
proposals floating around that are quite different from the
ICANN/Board/Staff proposals, and I believe, have much more support in the
Internet community.  For the most part, the alternatives would have either
more of a public/user role in electing the ICANN board members, or would
dramatically reduce ICANN's centralized power making.   In a new
competition, we would go back first principles about DNS management, and not
necessarily have to work around the edges of the Lynn proposal.

   People who oppose a rebid can vote against it.  This is not binding on
anyone.  But a vote would let everyone, including DoC and the ICANN board,
what people think.   I don't know why there is so much opposition  to voting
( by the public) in ICANN.   It is certainly is *not* the case there there
exists a consensus in favor of the basic Lynnn plan, but that is where the
DNSO and the ICANN board is headed.   I think a vote would be interesting
and important.  It should take place fairly soon, certainly before the end
of May, so people who care what we think, can at least have some better
measure of this.  .

Also, it seems like a flaw if the Chair of the GA can simply block these
votes based upon his personal views.

 Jamie

- --------------------------------
James Love mailto:[email-masked]
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040

- --
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, 3 May 2002 08:29:57 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract - update 1

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
>
> This "motion" is nothing but an attempt by some vocal ICANN critics do
> try and create an "embarrassment" for ICANN so they can say that
> ICANN's own DNSO General Assembly has said "blah blah blah" and use
> that in their media plays.
>
> It is ill-times, counter productive, and those who support it are
> doing everything possible to try and rush it through.
>
> I hope our elected chair will be the leader he has shown himself to be
> and resist such efforts.
>

      William, the vote will not be an embarassmeent for the Lynn plan if
the voters reject the rebid.

  Why is an elected chair a leader if he doesn't allow votes?  What was he
elected to do?  Think for us?

- --------------------------------
James Love mailto:[email-masked]
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040

- --
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, 3 May 2002 05:36:33 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

Friday, May 03, 2002, 5:24:02 AM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> I beleive Jamie *has* proposed a text, hasn't he?

And all his text does is support the premise that the ICANN has used
to disregard the DNSO GA, that it is nothing but a place for critics
to swarm and attack it from.

Are you people intentionally setting the DNSO GA up so that it has no
chance of gaining relevancy?

- -- 
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, 3 May 2002 08:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

The story is, IMHO, slightly more complex, as the Clinton administration
was responding to pressure from the EU, and the trademark lobby.  See 	
http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann.pdf
starting at about [*pg 62].

On Fri, 3 May 2002, James Love wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 3:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract
> >
> > Jamie,
> >
> > Was ICANN put in place by the sole action of the US DoC ?
> >
> > Elisabeth Porteneuve
> 
>      Pretty much in the beginning....  The US DoC wants to have an
> international framework for managing the DNS, and the White Paper and the
> handpicked ICANN board was the Clinton Administration solution.  After the
> Lynn proposal, there is a big debate over where everything should go next.
> What will be ICANN 2?   We would like to see the various DoC ICANN contracts
> rebid, so ICANN 1 can present its final version of the Lynn/Board/staff
> plan, and others can present different ideas.   Right now there are many
> proposals floating around that are quite different from the
> ICANN/Board/Staff proposals, and I believe, have much more support in the
> Internet community.  For the most part, the alternatives would have either
> more of a public/user role in electing the ICANN board members, or would
> dramatically reduce ICANN's centralized power making.   In a new
> competition, we would go back first principles about DNS management, and not
> necessarily have to work around the edges of the Lynn proposal.
> 
>    People who oppose a rebid can vote against it.  This is not binding on
> anyone.  But a vote would let everyone, including DoC and the ICANN board,
> what people think.   I don't know why there is so much opposition  to voting
> ( by the public) in ICANN.   It is certainly is *not* the case there there
> exists a consensus in favor of the basic Lynnn plan, but that is where the
> DNSO and the ICANN board is headed.   I think a vote would be interesting
> and important.  It should take place fairly soon, certainly before the end
> of May, so people who care what we think, can at least have some better
> measure of this.  .
> 
> Also, it seems like a flaw if the Chair of the GA can simply block these
> votes based upon his personal views.
> 
>  Jamie
> 
> --------------------------------
> James Love mailto:[email-masked]
> http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

- --
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, 3 May 2002 09:15:52 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Text of the motion... 

Below was the text of the motion.   There has been not a lot of time, but a
fair amount of debate.  There is support for this motion.  There is
opposition to this motion.   It is not clear to me how a member of the GA
can get a vote.  As a matter of principle, I don't think I should have to
persuade the Chair of the GA that a measure should pass before it is voted
on.    The point of a vote is to find out what the members think, it seems
to me.  I apologize to the Chair if he was insulted by my earlier comment
that I didn't care what he thought of the merits of the proposal.  My point
was not intended as an insult, but explain something about procedure.  If
Thomas Roessler, who many believe to be hard working and sincere, can
explain to me, a mere member of the GA and not someone who devotes his life
to ICANN affairs, how to proceed, in plain language, I would be grateful.
(this is not meant to be ironical).

Jamie

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

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
To: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 10:29 AM
Subject: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract
Ok, I make this as a motion, as follows:

"I move that the GA poll its members, to record its views on whether or not
the US Department of Commerce should have an open competition for the
services now provided by ICANN.  The rationale for asking for a rebid is
that ICANN has dramatically changed the intitial terms of refence for ICANN,
and is proposing even further changes, which have met extensive opposition
in the Internet community.   The rebid would allow the NTIA to consider
alternatives to the current ICANN plan for managing key Internet resources.
The vote should be taken within 10 days."

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>; "General assembly list"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 1:31 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] GA proceedures

> If this is a motion, I second it.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of James
> > Love
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 11:56 PM
> > To: General assembly list
> > Subject: [ga] GA proceedures
> >
> >
> > 1.  What does it take to get a vote from the GA?
> > 2.  Could we have a vote on whether or not we would like the US
Department
> > of Commerce to rebid the ICANN contract, on the grounds that ICANN is
> > abandoning the original promise regarding at large elections and bottom
up
> > consensus decision making, with all stakeholders included?
> >
> > Jamie
> >
> > --------------------------------
> > James Love mailto:[email-masked]
> > http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

> Friday, May 03, 2002, 5:24:02 AM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
wrote:
>
> > I beleive Jamie *has* proposed a text, hasn't he?
>
> And all his text does is support the premise that the ICANN has used
> to disregard the DNSO GA, that it is nothing but a place for critics
> to swarm and attack it from.
>
> Are you people intentionally setting the DNSO GA up so that it has no
> chance of gaining relevancy?
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 3 May 2002 15:21:13 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

On 2002-05-03 07:26:33 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:

>You, on the other hand, are insisting, in a rather high handed and 
>autocratic fashion, that nobody may speak, ask for a show of  
>hands, suggest a schedule, or even have a general discussion on  
>this issue (and presumably any other) unless a formal Motion is  
>put on the table first.

I'm sorry, Joanna - but this is garbage.  Re-read the message you've 
replied to.  Read the third paragraph.  What, precisely, didn't you  
understand about the words "put it on the table for discussion"?

So, once again, let me outline the process I'd expect to be followed 
just in case there was a misunderstanding:

1. Idea for a motion.  Discussion of that idea, drafting of a _real_ 
motion.

2. Support.  (May have been demonstrated during the discussion.)

3. Vote.

We currently have an idea (draft, proposal, whatever you want to  
call it) for a motion.  Now, please discuss the topic at hand: 
Should the GA make the comment Jamie has suggested?  Why?  Why not? 
My contribution to that discussion is on the table.  My questions 
about the proposal are on the table, too. 

It's up to those who support the proposal to take up this 
discussion.

As I said before, a lot of times: You are at the beginning of step  
one now.  Please start discussion on the substance of the motion.   
Don't do straw polls at this point of time, don't demand votes at  
this point of time.

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

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

Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 06:27:12 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Text of the motion...

Friday, May 03, 2002, 6:15:52 AM, James Love wrote:

> Below was the text of the motion.   There has been not a lot of time, but a
> fair amount of debate.  There is support for this motion.  There is
> opposition to this motion.   It is not clear to me how a member of the GA

But there is NOT consensus, and the GA operates under consensus.

- -- 
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, 3 May 2002 15:34:42 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Text of the motion...

On 2002-05-03 09:15:52 -0400, James Love wrote:

>Below was the text of the motion.  There has been not a lot of 
>time, but a fair amount of debate.  

There has been a fair amount of debate on the process, but  
practically no such debate on the contents of your motion.  You  
could begin such a debate by actually responding to the comments I 
made earlier.  See below.

- ----- Forwarded message from James Love <[email-masked]> -----

From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
To: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>,
	"General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 11:31:14 -0400
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

Thomas,

I don't mind you having any opinion you want on this.  But I am asking for a
vote, to estabish how the GA members feel about this issue.      The GA
doesn't have the power to force decisions, but it can let people know what
its members (not only its chair) think.   I am asking for a vote.  We can
address what is on the ballot if we can agree that there will be a vote.

Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

> On 2002-05-02 10:29:43 -0400, James Love wrote:
>
> >"I move that the GA poll its members, to record its views on
> >whether or not the US Department of Commerce should have an open
> >competition for the services now provided by ICANN.  The rationale
> >for asking for a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the
> >intitial terms of refence for ICANN, and is proposing even further
> >changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet
> >community.  The rebid would allow the NTIA to consider
> >alternatives to the current ICANN plan for managing key Internet
> >resources. The vote should be taken within 10 days."
>
> _Suggesting_ radical changes is one thing, _adopting_ them is an
> entirely different thing.  In particular, calling for a re-bid at
> this point of time would amount to a vote of no confidence in the
> entire ICANN structure as we know it.  Such a vote of no confidence
> would most likely remove the GA's (small) possibilities to influence
> the process in any reasonable manner.  (To draw the parallel: The GA
> would be - legitimately! - shocked if it was dissolved for
> _suggesting_ radical changes, such as a re-bid.)
>
> If you insist on such a vote, I'd suggest that the vote should ask
> for a rebid under the condition that ICANN actually moves to _adopt_
> radical changes which seem inconsistent with the white paper's
> _fundamental_ _principles_.
>
> There are two possible ways of implementing this.  Either, such a
> vote could be held now, and explicitly list the principles the GA
> wants to see preserved.  Or, the vote could be held when ICANN
> actually crosses the Rubicon.  (Some will, of course, argue that it
> already has done so.)
>
> There is one more thing one should keep in mind: There is no
> guarantee that the winner of a re-bid would be better than the
> current, or a reformed, ICANN.  I'd suggest that the GA doesn't ask
> for a re-bid unless it has reason to believe that such a re-bid
> would actually lead to an improvement.  Giving such reasons is up to
> you, James.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>
>

- ----- End forwarded message -----

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

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

Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 09:42:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Text of the motion...

> >
> > >"I move that the GA poll its members, to record its views on
> > >whether or not the US Department of Commerce should have an open
> > >competition for the services now provided by ICANN.  The rationale
> > >for asking for a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the
> > >intitial terms of refence for ICANN, and is proposing even further
> > >changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet
> > >community.  The rebid would allow the NTIA to consider
> > >alternatives to the current ICANN plan for managing key Internet
> > >resources. The vote should be taken within 10 days."

TR responded
> >
> > _Suggesting_ radical changes is one thing, _adopting_ them is an
> > entirely different thing.  In particular, calling for a re-bid at
> > this point of time would amount to a vote of no confidence in the
> > entire ICANN structure as we know it.  Such a vote of no confidence
> > would most likely remove the GA's (small) possibilities to influence
> > the process in any reasonable manner.  (To draw the parallel: The GA
> > would be - legitimately! - shocked if it was dissolved for
> > _suggesting_ radical changes, such as a re-bid.)
> >

Lynn's plan already says radical changes are needed an coming.  It think
that it's too late to suggest that the door is not open to this.

The GA has no paricular influence within ICANN.  Well, none, actually.
There is no harm in also playing to outside constituencies, or to the
historical record.

> > If you insist on such a vote, I'd suggest that the vote should ask
> > for a rebid under the condition that ICANN actually moves to _adopt_
> > radical changes which seem inconsistent with the white paper's
> > _fundamental_ _principles_.
> >

Again, that's almost done.  And we know what the committee will do, more
or less.

> > There are two possible ways of implementing this.  Either, such a
> > vote could be held now, and explicitly list the principles the GA
> > wants to see preserved.  Or, the vote could be held when ICANN
> > actually crosses the Rubicon.  (Some will, of course, argue that it
> > already has done so.)
> >

Indeed.

> > There is one more thing one should keep in mind: There is no
> > guarantee that the winner of a re-bid would be better than the
> > current, or a reformed, ICANN.  I'd suggest that the GA doesn't ask

True

> > for a re-bid unless it has reason to believe that such a re-bid
> > would actually lead to an improvement.  Giving such reasons is up to
> > you, James.

I think there are reasons to belive this. The first bid was held 'under
the radar'.  Everyone will be watching this time.

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

- --
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, 3 May 2002 15:42:42 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DRAFT - WLS statement (repost)

- --FCuugMFkClbJLl1L
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline

Since the ToR's for the WLS discussions have not been posted yet,  
I'll not send out the attached document before Monday.  If you have  
any comments on it, please make them now.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

- --FCuugMFkClbJLl1L
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="wls-020430.txt"

Subject: GA input on WLS
To: [email-masked]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched
Content-Disposition: inline

To the Transfer TF: On behalf of the GA, I'd like to ask the Task 
Force to pay particular attention to the aspects of deleted domain 
handling and the WLS proposal described below.  Most of these 
concerns have been raised elsewhere before.

Regards, Thomas Roessler

(Chairman, DNSO GA)

<bold>1. Impact on competition between registrars.</bold> (See also:
<italic>RC position paper regarding the proposed Wait Listing Service; GA
feedback submitted to Verisign.</italic>)

<indent>

Consider any registrar who has hoarded expired domain names.  Such a
registrar could wait for WLS subscriptions being made through it.
Once a WLS subscription for a hoarded domain name is there, the
domain could be relased - and immediately re-registered through the
same registrar, due to the WLS subscription.  If a WLS subscription
is made through a different registrar, nothing happens.

Rumor of this could be expected to quickly spread in the community:
If you want to back-order a domain name which has expired, but is
not available, go to the old registrar for your WLS subscription.

Ultimately, this approach to selling off hoarded domain names (which
would be economically quite attractive at least to Verisign, and -
at sufficiently high WLS prices - possibly also for other
registrars) could lead to a _significant_ increase in the cost for
registering an expired domain.  It would also skew competition
between registrars as far as registrations of these domains are
concerned - effectively, potential registrants would be forced to go
to the "old" registrar.

The conclusion from this scenario would be to hold up WLS until the
hoarding problem has been solved (1) on the policy, and (2) on the
implementation side, i.e., until the currently-hoarded domain names
have been released to the public.

</indent>

<bold>2. Grandfathering current subscriptions.</bold> (See also:
<italic>RC position paper; GA feedback submitted to Verisign; VGRS
response to General Counsel's Analysis.</italic>)

<indent>

In the earlier GA response, and the Registrar Constituency's
position, there are concerns on the impact an implementation of the
WLS proposal may have with respect to those who are currently
offering special services aimed at registering deleted domain names.
In particular, it is noted that only current SnapNames subscriptions
are grandfathered.

In its response to General Counsel's analysis, VGRS writes:
<italic>"Regarding the possible exclusions of names associated with
other deleted name registration services, VGRS only proposed
excluding SnapNames names because VGRS is not aware of any other
paid-up contracts on specific, identifiable names providing for
reasonable customer expectations and thereby opening up the door to
potential lawsuits."</italic>

The GA's members are not convinced by this argument, and ask the
Task Force to investigate the impact an implementation of the WLS
proposal under the conditions currently suggested may have on
legitimate interests of existing deleted name registration services,
such as eNom, NicGenie, IARegistry, AWRegistry, Signature Domains,
INWW, OnlineNic, AddressCreation, AllDomains, EastCom, PayCenter,
ExpireFish.  

</indent>

- --FCuugMFkClbJLl1L--
- --
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 #1157
*************************