Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1170
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Thursday, May 9 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1170

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

Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 16:09:40 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Negative outreach norms, board claims regarding consensus in favor of "reform" efforts

1.  What is the argument for not having people vote in a GA ballot measure,
if they care about an ICANN issue?  I posted some notices that there will be
a vote in the GA, and gave out pointers where to register.   There have not
been that many new voter registrations, and certainly a lot of the ones that
are new are people with a long history of following ICANN, who just were not
registered.   I wasn't registered until a few days ago, despite having spent
more time (and travel money) on ICANN matters over the years that one could
rationally justify.    It would be one thing if someone was going around a
neighborhood or shopping center and signing up people at random who did not
know anything.   Every place where I posted information about the ICANN GA
vote has already had a slug of ICANN posts over the past year or so.   I was
surprised for example to see Alexander signal out the NCDNHC post (they are
a DNSO constituency) or ICANNWatch?  Are these your ideas of uninformed
persons?   I wish Dave Farber had run something on this, or NetTime too.
Many of the best ideas about ICANN are not coming from GA members, but from
others, who if they knew there was an opportunity to vote, would.   I'm not
signing up by brother in law or kids friends for this. Out of an office
staff of 25, we have only two registered (both of us have been attending
ICANN board meetings for years) and I am insulted by some of the inferences
that have been made.   Is there *any* evidence that any of the new
registrations are not more informed about ICANN that the ancient ones (many
of whom probably don't even following things anymore)?    It has of course
been discussed on several non-GA lists, including for example closed lists
like icann-alsg, set up by TR (which I think is a good thing).   I would
like to see *more* not less outreach on this vote, but after these
complaints, who will do it?

2.  One reason to have this vote is that the ICANN board and staff are
telling governments (everywhere) that they have a consensus in the "Internet
 community" on the reform process.  And if they say so, who is to say
otherwise?  Unless, for example, you have something like a vote.    Right
now a GA vote will be a data point.  I think a useful data point regarding
the degree of consensus on the Lynn/Board "reform" efforts, and it would be
more interesting if there was larger participation, going even beyond the
hyperactive GA-list posting community.

  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: Wed, 08 May 2002 16:14:39 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The rebid vote

<snip>
As to the "Motion" itself, Thomas Roessler asked for a list of 10 supporters
of
it, and Joanna Lane posted both the Motion and the list of
supporters.(However, motions do
not ordinarily include within their wording any explanations thereof.)
Bill Lovell
__________________

Allow me to make a Correction, or should I say, clarification to my last
post. For reasons of a short time frame, the GA Chair asked for the list of
supporters to be compiled from those members who had previously indicated
their support for taking a vote, rather than solicit new expressions of
interest. This may have caused some confusion.

For the avoidance of doubt, the SUPPORTERS list I posted together with the
Motion text represents the majority of members who have expressed agreement
with a vote being taken, but this should not be taken to mean that these
members are in agreement with the motion itself, neither is its necessary to
provide such a list. Equally, it should not be taken to mean that all
supporters agree with the vote being taken during the week May 13 to May 17,
as proposed by the Chair, at least four members to my knowledge think this
leaves insufficient time for debate.

I believe the floor is now open for members to debate the wording of this
Motion, to suggest possible amendments, or even propose an alternative/
substitute Motion. Bill is quite correct when he says the wording of the
Motion is not something that is resolved by Agreement between only the
Proponent and the Chair, (and especially in the situation where the Chair is
hostile to the Motion going forward, as would seem to be the case here). It
is a fundamental principal of BP that all members have a right to be heard
on an issue, that is the meaning of concrete, bottom up, consensus building
procedures. Now is your chance.

I suggest the debate is focused on the following aspects:-

1. Concern has been expressed that the meaning of the word "rebid" is not
clear.
2. Concern has been expressed that the Motion text should include specific
reference for each of the ICANN contract(s) to which this will apply.
3. The basis for the Motion, the rationale, is usually stated in the
"whereas" clauses preceding the Motion, not in the body of the Motion
itself.

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: Wed, 08 May 2002 16:26:48 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote

After mulling it over in my mind for a few days....I suggest the
slightly modified text as follows:

The GA asks the the US Department of Commerce to have an open
competition for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that the
new competition would address the need to develop an international
framework for DNS management.  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. These proposed changes
have met extensive opposition in the Internet community and go even
further from the original terms of reference. The rebid would allow the
DoC to consider both the ICANN board proposal for restructuring,
alternatives offered by others for managing key Internet resources, and
provide for a public record of the process for enhanced visibility.

Darrell Greenwood wrote:
> 
> On 5/8/02 at 10:36 AM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote :
> 
> >On 2002-05-08 04:25:49 -0400, James Love wrote:
> >
> >>"The GA asks the the US Department of Commerce to have an open
> >>competition for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that
> >>the new competition would address the need to develop an
> >>international framework for DNS management.  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 DoC to consider both the
> >>ICANN board proposal for restructuring, and alternatives offered
> >>by others for managing key Internet resources."
> 
> I support this text.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Darrell
> --
> 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, 8 May 2002 14:15:57 -0700
From: Darrell Greenwood <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote

On 5/8/02 at 4:26 PM -0400, Dan Steinberg wrote :

>After mulling it over in my mind for a few days....I suggest the
>slightly modified text as follows:
>
>The GA asks the the US Department of Commerce to have an open
>competition for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that the
>new competition would address the need to develop an international
>framework for DNS management.  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. These proposed changes
>have met extensive opposition in the Internet community and go even
>further from the original terms of reference. The rebid would allow the
>DoC to consider both the ICANN board proposal for restructuring,
>alternatives offered by others for managing key Internet resources, and
>provide for a public record of the process for enhanced visibility.

I agree with Dan's modifications, and I support this text.

Cheers,

Darrell
- --
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, 08 May 2002 23:11:14 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Point of Order

- --=======4CDF70E4=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-74B722C3; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

At 19:27 08/05/02, [email-masked] wrote:
>Dear Ken,
>Please note that our bylaws state:  "Constituencies or GA participants may
>propose that the NC consider domain name policies or recommendations."
>
>As a GA participant, I propose that the NC consider the recommendation to ask
>the NTIA to re-bid the ICANN contracts, and that it place this topic on the
>NC agenda for discussion in the context of the ongoing debate on Reform
>options.
>Looking forward to seeing how the NC manages this consensus process,

Let keep cool. I see no reason why the NC would not forward that request 
through the BoD. Not necessarily as a request for a rebid first, but for a 
review before the renewal of an agreement which should have been terminated 
2 years ago and that the ICANN says it cannot totally fullfil. That request 
even seems a necessity to clarify the situation displayed on wecann.com
jfc

- --=======4CDF70E4=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-74B722C3
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02

- --=======4CDF70E4=======--

- --
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, 08 May 2002 23:17:22 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The rebid vote

- --=======67F46A15=======
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-74B722C3; boundary="=====================_7887246==_.ALT"

- --=====================_7887246==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-74B722C3; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Joanna is nice in having proposed the text of Jamies motion.
Might we discuss the precise wording of the text now WXW made us waste a 
day?  Is there anyone with some comments before Jamie locks it?
I am lost: when is it to be voted?
jfc

On 21:46 08/05/02, todd glassey said:
>I personally would support a rebid demand myself since I feel the current 
>process is both open-loop and failed to answer a number of critical questions.
>
>Todd Glassey
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: <mailto:[email-masked]>William S. Lovell
>>To: <mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
>>Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 11:51 AM
>>Subject: [ga] The rebid vote
>>
>>I don't know why all you folks continue to succumb to this whole bit.  I 
>>count 17 emails with
>>the heading "Point of Order," and not a nickle's worth of input on the 
>>wording of the proposed
>>motion, or indeed very much at all. This "vote" will be conducted by 
>>Thomas Roessler, under
>>the dictates of the DNSO procedures, under very constrained time limits 
>>that allow little or no
>>comment, opportunity to amend, alternative proposals, and the actual 
>>content of the "Motion"
>>is something that has been "agreed" to between James Love and Thomas 
>>Roessler. That is not
>>the way things are supposed to work.
>>
>>This side-tracking onto "point of order" issues is of course the standard 
>>tactic of William X.
>>Walsh -- he's been doing that for years, so as to prevent any meaningful 
>>operation of the
>>ordinary democratic process, and he's been getting away with it because 
>>too many folks fall
>>into his trap. As to the "Motion" itself, Thomas Roessler asked for a 
>>list of 10 supporters of
>>it, and Joanna Lane posted both the Motion and the list of 
>>supporters.(However, motions do
>>not ordinarily include within their wording any explanations 
>>thereof.)  James Love reasonably
>>asked about how the wording would be settled, would there be any other 
>>motions and so on,
>>and the answer from Thomas Roessler seems to be that there will be only 
>>the one motion and
>>"time is up." The ordinary characteristics of a democratic process have 
>>again been thwarted by
>>the fact that the GA indeed has no settled procedure that would allow a 
>>meaningful length of time
>>for meaningful debate, and I would not blame the DNSO Secretariat one bit 
>>if the Motion were
>>rejected because it had no cognizable foundation, beyond the fact that 
>>the poll recently
>>conducted certainly indicates that the issue garners sufficient interest 
>>to be addressed further.
>>There will now be a motion, but no significant "addressing." What was 
>>presented, in terms
>>of alternatives with respect to ICANN reorganizing and the like, seems to 
>>have fallen into a
>>very deep well.
>>
>>Now it is true that the DNSO procedure will allow a time for debate. But 
>>the scope of that
>>debate will be limited by the scope of the one Motion, which I don't 
>>think will suffice to cover
>>the complexity of the issue.  I've suggested that within the GA itself, 
>>before anyone rushes to
>>the Chair with something called a Motion, there be extensive debate and 
>>discussion, so that
>>all of the elements of the issue will be known to everyone, and from that 
>>a most meaningful
>>Motion would emerge that at that time would be presented to the Chair. It 
>>is only by that
>>kind of procedure that the slim chance that the BoD would pay any 
>>attention to it anyway
>>might be enhanced.  I've said before, and I'll say it again, that the GA 
>>is a third-world
>>country, run for years by a dictatorship, and the GA members cannot get 
>>themselves out
>>of that because they don't understand how the democratic process works, 
>>and hence
>>continue to bow to the rules of the dictator. Those rules seem to have 
>>been set up with
>>that very intent: by definition, anything that runs that constrained 
>>course will show a lack
>>of any consensus, and the BoD will routinely so announce.  Very few in 
>>the GA seem to
>>have the ---- to have the GA proceed on its own, outside of the 
>>deliberately constrained
>>DNSO procedures.  To those Pavlovian dogs who will now salivate in the 
>>form of saying that
>>anything so done would have "no official status," please allow me a 
>>moment to try to stop
>>laughing. In terms of ICANN policy, the GA has no status. The only 
>>difference between
>>toeing the DNSO line on voting and the GA doing it on its own is that the 
>>latter choice,
>>wherein free democratic processes might occur, would more likely produce 
>>definitive,
>>meaningful results from which a real consensus might well emerge.
>>
>>Bill Lovell
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02

- --=====================_7887246==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-74B722C3; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
Joanna is nice in having proposed the text of Jamies motion. <br>
Might we discuss the precise wording of the text now WXW made us waste a
day?&nbsp; Is there anyone with some comments before Jamie locks 
it?<br>
I am lost: when is it to be voted?<br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
On 21:46 08/05/02, todd glassey said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2>I
personally would support a rebid demand myself since I feel the current
process is both open-loop and failed to answer a number of critical
questions. </font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="arial" size=2>Todd Glassey</font><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>----- Original Message ----- <br>
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:[email-masked]">William S. Lovell</a>
<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 08, 2002 11:51 AM<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [ga] The rebid vote<br><br>
I don't know why all you folks continue to succumb to this whole bit.&nbsp; I count 17 emails with<br>
the heading &quot;Point of Order,&quot; and not a nickle's worth of input on the wording of the proposed<br>
motion, or indeed very much at all. This &quot;vote&quot; will be conducted by Thomas Roessler, under<br>
the dictates of the DNSO procedures, under very constrained time limits that allow little or no <br>
comment, opportunity to amend, alternative proposals, and the actual content of the &quot;Motion&quot; <br>
is something that has been &quot;agreed&quot; to between James Love and Thomas Roessler. That is not <br>
the way things are supposed to work.<br><br>
This side-tracking onto &quot;point of order&quot; issues is of course the standard tactic of William X.<br>
Walsh -- he's been doing that for years, so as to prevent any meaningful operation of the <br>
ordinary democratic process, and he's been getting away with it because too many folks fall <br>
into his trap. As to the &quot;Motion&quot; itself, Thomas Roessler asked for a list of 10 supporters of<br>
it, and Joanna Lane posted both the Motion and the list of supporters.(However, motions do<br>
not ordinarily include within their wording any explanations thereof.)&nbsp; James Love reasonably<br>
asked about how the wording would be settled, would there be any other motions and so on,<br>
and the answer from Thomas Roessler seems to be that there will be only the one motion and <br>
&quot;time is up.&quot; The ordinary characteristics of a democratic process have again been thwarted by <br>
the fact that the GA indeed has <i>no settled procedure</i> that would allow a meaningful length of time<br>
for meaningful debate, and I would not blame the DNSO Secretariat one bit if the Motion were<br>
rejected because it had no cognizable foundation, beyond the fact that the poll recently<br>
conducted certainly indicates that the issue garners sufficient interest to be addressed further.<br>
There will now be a motion, but no significant &quot;addressing.&quot; What was presented, in terms<br>
of alternatives with respect to ICANN reorganizing and the like, seems to have fallen into a <br>
very deep well.<br><br>
Now it is true that the DNSO procedure will allow a time for debate. But the scope of that<br>
debate will be limited by the scope of the one Motion, which I don't think will suffice to cover<br>
the complexity of the issue.&nbsp; I've suggested that within the GA itself, before anyone rushes to<br>
the Chair with something called a Motion, there be extensive debate and discussion, so that<br>
all of the elements of the issue will be known to everyone, and from that a most meaningful<br>
Motion would emerge that <i>at that time</i> would be presented to the Chair. It is only by that<br>
kind of procedure that the slim chance that the BoD would pay any attention to it anyway<br>
might be enhanced.&nbsp; I've said before, and I'll say it again, that the GA is a third-world<br>
country, run for years by a dictatorship, and the GA members cannot get themselves out <br>
of that because they don't understand how the democratic process works, and hence<br>
continue to bow to the rules of the dictator. Those rules seem to have been set up <i>with <br>
that very intent</i>: by definition, anything that runs that constrained course will show a lack <br>
of any consensus, and the BoD will routinely so announce.&nbsp; Very few in the GA seem to<br>
have the ---- to have the GA proceed on its own, outside of the deliberately constrained<br>
DNSO procedures.&nbsp; To those Pavlovian dogs who will now salivate in the form of saying that<br>
anything so done would have &quot;no official status,&quot; please allow me a moment to try to stop<br>
laughing. In terms of ICANN policy, <i>the GA has no status</i>. The only difference between<br>
toeing the DNSO line on voting and the GA doing it on its own is that the latter choice,<br>
wherein free democratic processes might occur, would more likely produce definitive,<br>
meaningful results from which a real consensus might well emerge.<br><br>
Bill Lovell</blockquote><br>
- ---<br>
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.<br>
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (<a href="http://www.grisoft.com/" eudora="autourl">http://www.grisoft.com</a>).<br>
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02</blockquote></html>

- --=====================_7887246==_.ALT--

- --=======67F46A15=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-74B722C3
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02

- --=======67F46A15=======--

- --
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, 8 May 2002 14:16:13 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote

I have some more wording changes.

See inline below.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>
To: "Darrell Greenwood" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>; "James Love"
<[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote

> After mulling it over in my mind for a few days....I suggest the
> slightly modified text as follows:
>
> The GA  sends a mandate too the US Department of Commerce and to the US
Federal Trade Commission

to  setup and require for perpetude,

> an open
> competition for the services now provided by ICANN

ASO's. This new competition would address the need to develop both a US
specific and an international framework for DNS management.  The rationale
for mandating this rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the intitial
terms of refence for its own and the overall operaitons of the name space,
and is at this time proposing even further changes. These proposed changes

> have met extensive opposition in the Internet community and go even
> further from the original terms of reference. The rebid would allow the

DoC and the US Federal trade Commission to compell the ICANN board to
address the critical initiatiaves and evolutionary requirements for
restructuring; the alternatives offered by others for managing key Internet
resources; and provide for increased scrutiny in the form of a public record
as a part of the ongoing ICANN process audit.

TTFN
Todd

>
>
>
> Darrell Greenwood wrote:
> >
> > On 5/8/02 at 10:36 AM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote :
> >
> > >On 2002-05-08 04:25:49 -0400, James Love wrote:
> > >
> > >>"The GA asks the the US Department of Commerce to have an open
> > >>competition for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that
> > >>the new competition would address the need to develop an
> > >>international framework for DNS management.  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 DoC to consider both the
> > >>ICANN board proposal for restructuring, and alternatives offered
> > >>by others for managing key Internet resources."
> >
> > I support this text.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Darrell
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

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

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

Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 22:53:15 +0100
From: "Andy Duff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Point of Order

On Wed 8 May, William X Walsh wrote:

> Calling for a rebid of the ICANN contract supercedes the grant of power
> allowed in the bylaws as it extends beyond the work of the DNSO into
> areas that also concern the PSO and ASO.

Well perhaps Jamie should reword it to say that the functions of the DNSO
should be put up for rebid, though I personally think this is a spurious
distinction.

The reality is that there's a growing consensus of opinion that a bit of
competition for ICANN (or the DNSO if you want to restrict it to that) would
do no harm at all; Jamie's proposed motion is designed to establish whether
such consensus exists. Efforts to cite "procedure" in order to prevent a
vote taking place are not surprisingly from those who do not support the
motion and who fear that such a motion may garner general support. Some
salient points:

1. If there is no consensus on Jamie's motion, it won't pass
2. If Jamie's motion does pass and there is a rebid, I would hope that those
who support a version of the current ICANN structure were confident enough
that their own bid would prevail by virtue of it's suitability to the task
at hand.

Finally, a further word on this issue of the increase in the GA voting
registry. The GA voting system is actually a prime example of why the
current ICANN structure can never work efficiently - anyone could get their
granny, cousins, sisters, aunts uncles to register and vote on a position if
they wanted to. That's the real issue - that ICANN's current structure is
horribly unaccountable and lends itself to capture and dominance by certain
interest groups - and that's why I continue to believe that a rethinking
from scratch (including the DoC inviting alternative bids) is required. I
think it's becoming clear that actually "not a lot" is what's required, and
that many of ICANN's problems stem from an over-elaborate and unaccountable
structure. The market has an uncanny knack of keeping things in check.

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: Wed, 8 May 2002 23:55:25 +0200
From: "Jeanette Hofmann" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote

On 8 May 2002 at 16:26, Dan Steinberg wrote:

> After mulling it over in my mind for a few days....I suggest the
> slightly modified text as follows:
> 
> The GA asks the the US Department of Commerce to have an open
> competition for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that the
> new competition would address the need to develop an international
> framework for DNS management.  

Despite the fact that I find the second part of this sentence not clear enough, 
I'd  suggest to give it a slightly different turn. In the Green and the White 
Paper, the USG made it clear that it intends to withdraw from DNS 
management. The current ICANN structure has proven to be unhelpful in this 
respect. Schedules could not be met, agreements with key stakeholders not 
to be achieved. A rebid/ open competition aims at comprehensive 
privatization and internationalization....

jeanette

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. These proposed changes
> have met extensive opposition in the Internet community and go even
> further from the original terms of reference. The rebid would allow the
> DoC to consider both the ICANN board proposal for restructuring,
> alternatives offered by others for managing key Internet resources, and
> provide for a public record of the process for enhanced visibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Darrell Greenwood wrote:
> > 
> > On 5/8/02 at 10:36 AM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote :
> > 
> > >On 2002-05-08 04:25:49 -0400, James Love wrote:
> > >
> > >>"The GA asks the the US Department of Commerce to have an open
> > >>competition for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that
> > >>the new competition would address the need to develop an
> > >>international framework for DNS management.  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 DoC to consider both the
> > >>ICANN board proposal for restructuring, and alternatives offered
> > >>by others for managing key Internet resources."
> > 
> > I support this text.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Darrell
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 15:03:56 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote

Many apologies and this will be my last reply for the day -  I am sorry but
I should have been clearer in my response below that I think that this open
competition should be a regular thing. That the contracts should regularly
expire and then an open competition should be held for that slot. It will
keep the registrars on their toes and allow others into the mix. That being
said maybe a contract is awarded either for 4,5 or 10 years at most. But
there also in this process has to be a method of bouncing a registrar for
not providing a basic level of service.

And as I have said I am also very concerned for the procedural models for
what happens when one registrar goes belly-up. This is happening more and
more these days and well, it would cripple any number of businesses if their
registrars and/or DNS service providers happened to die out from under them.
And since it is really unlikely that the registrar would send any notice
ahead of time to the customer let alone a letter that said "Hey sucker - so
long - its been nice and next Thursday at noon we are no more...Ahahahahaha"
so the net-net is that the registrar would very likely just close up one day
and with no notice leave their customers high and dry.

And rather than to force the Registrars customers to deal with this kind of
gross negligence in civil court it would be better to put in place a
failover model that was to be implemented and some snapshot of every
registrar's maps such that if one of them dies the others could pickup the
pieces.

Just my 2 cents

Todd Glassey

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>; "Darrell Greenwood"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>; "James Love"
<[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote

> I have some more wording changes.
>
> See inline below.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Darrell Greenwood" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>; "James Love"
> <[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 1:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote
>
>
> > After mulling it over in my mind for a few days....I suggest the
> > slightly modified text as follows:
> >
> > The GA  sends a mandate too the US Department of Commerce and to the US
> Federal Trade Commission
>
> to  setup and require for perpetude,
>
> > an open
> > competition for the services now provided by ICANN
>
> ASO's. This new competition would address the need to develop both a US
> specific and an international framework for DNS management.  The rationale
> for mandating this rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the
intitial
> terms of refence for its own and the overall operaitons of the name space,
> and is at this time proposing even further changes. These proposed changes
>
> > have met extensive opposition in the Internet community and go even
> > further from the original terms of reference. The rebid would allow the
>
> DoC and the US Federal trade Commission to compell the ICANN board to
> address the critical initiatiaves and evolutionary requirements for
> restructuring; the alternatives offered by others for managing key
Internet
> resources; and provide for increased scrutiny in the form of a public
record
> as a part of the ongoing ICANN process audit.
>
>
> TTFN
> Todd
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Darrell Greenwood wrote:
> > >
> > > On 5/8/02 at 10:36 AM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote :
> > >
> > > >On 2002-05-08 04:25:49 -0400, James Love wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>"The GA asks the the US Department of Commerce to have an open
> > > >>competition for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that
> > > >>the new competition would address the need to develop an
> > > >>international framework for DNS management.  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 DoC to consider both the
> > > >>ICANN board proposal for restructuring, and alternatives offered
> > > >>by others for managing key Internet resources."
> > >
> > > I support this text.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Darrell
> > > --
> > > 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
>

- --
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, 08 May 2002 16:01:00 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] No more point of Order

That was really lame.  The entire thread was not even amusing.

One must have rules of order prior to having a point of order.

I think on the issue of rebidding we should all take the time to visit;
www.doc.gov  and familiarize ourselves with their makeup.

I am looking for it on the site but it seems to me any of us effected
can file an administrative claim to have this reviewed.  I do not
believe it is limited to US Citizens.

Eric

- --
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, 08 May 2002 19:10:59 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: Timetable and procedure for vote

FYI.
Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Love [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 6:34 PM
> To: Joanna Lane
> Subject: Re: Timetable and procedure for vote
>
>
> Joanna,
>
> I think Dan's friendly amendment is a good one.
>
> With regard to the other issues that have been raised,
>
> 1.    I don't think it is a good idea to mention the particular contracts,
> and I prefer the present more general statement, so that we don't get into
> legalistic issues over the current status of a particular contract, which
> may be difficult for people (who vote on this) to assess.
> Similarly there
> was a suggestion to spell out in detail the options that the USG could
> consider in renegotiations, and I would prefer to keep it fairly simple.
>
> 2.  Some have expressed a concern about the word, rebid.  The advantage of
> the word rebid is that people understand what we mean.   The disadvantage
> may be some technical legal imprecision regarding whether the
> term "bid" is
> right to describe how some of these agreements work.   We could substitute
> _new open competition_ for rebid, avoiding terms that may have the wrong
> technical meaning.    (See  below)  I personally think rebid is
> simpler and
> easier to read, but accept also "new open competition" or something else.
>
> 3.  I would prefer to not include Todd Glassey's suggestion that
> we specific
> to "require for perpetude", or that we make reference to the US Federal
> Trade Commission, which currently has no role in DNS, other than
> to lobby to
> whois disclosures.
>
> 4.    I am happy to add at the end the language suggested by Jeanette, in
> the form below, wondering only if it is getting too long.
>
> "The GA also reminds the DoC, that in the Green and the White  Paper, the
> USG made it clear that it intends to withdraw from DNS management. The
> current ICANN structure has proven to be unhelpful in this respect.
> Schedules could not be met and agreements with key stakeholders have not
> been achieved.  An open competition should aim to achieve comprehensive
> privatization and internationalization of DNS services."
>
> 5.   added at the end of Jeannette's last sentence, I would also add,
> "consistent with the need for stability, innovation, competition and
> freedom." if this is appropriate.    Noting that it may be more
> effective to
> keep it shorter, rather than adding new ideas.  On the other hand, maybe
> there is consensus on the new items.  I'm flex on this.    Jamie
>
> This is the modified version:
> =====================
> The GA asks the US Department of Commerce to have an open competition
> for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that the new competition
> would address the need to develop an international framework for DNS
> management.  The rationale for asking for a new open competition is that
> ICANN has dramatically changed the initial terms of reference for
> ICANN, and
> is proposing even further changes. These proposed changes have
> met extensive
> opposition in the Internet community and go even further from the original
> terms of reference. The  new open competition  would allow the DoC to
> consider both the ICANN board proposal for restructuring,  alternatives
> offered by others for managing key Internet resources, and provide for a
> public record of the process for enhanced visibility.  The GA also reminds
> the DoC, that in the Green and the White  Paper, the USG made it
> clear that
> it intends to withdraw from DNS management. The current ICANN
> structure has
> proven to be unhelpful in this respect.  Schedules could not be met and
> agreements with key stakeholders have not been achieved.  An open
> competition should aim to achieve comprehensive privatization and
> internationalization of DNS services, consistent with the need for
> stability, innovation, competition and freedom.
>
> ========================
>
>

- --
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 #1170
*************************