Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1182
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, May 11 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1182

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 21:07:36 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] other approaches and concerns

James Love wrote (on 2002-05-10!!!!):
>
>Marilyn, what evidence do you or anyone else on this list have regarding
>people stuffing the ballot box?   Can the DNSO staff post the names of 
>*new*
>persons who have been added to the list of voters, to see if there is even
>one person who should not vote, or any evidence that anyone has done
>anything wrong with regard to this ballot?  They should be able to do this.
>As of yesterday, the DNSO General Assembly voting registry was  576 
>entries.
>According to Alexander, it was 505 on May 5.

Please note that "yesterday" was May 9.
Hence the the voting registry increased by 71/505 = 14% in 4 days. Wow!!

>  I am one of the new persons
>registered to vote in the past weeks.

Mmmmh. Jamie is a long-time participant in the DNSO debate, mainly in the 
NonCom Constituency. Not here since the beginning of the DNSO, but not 
really a newcomer either.
In the last few years we elected three Chairpersons and related alternates, 
passed voting rules, passed other motions, discussed and voted substantive 
issues (directly related to the GA business, BTW), and he did not bother to 
register to the voting registry. Interesting.
What has changed now? Two possibilities I see.
- - Jamie has been struck on the way to Damascus, and converted to the GA, and 
will be one of the best activists on this list in the years to come
- - Jamie is specifically interested in this particular voting

Having known him personally, my opinion is "both of them".
Definitively I would expect in the future more participation from him, which 
is a Good Thing for the GA, but there is beyond any doubt a specific 
interest in this motion.
But then, so what?

My concern is not this vote. As I already stated, it is in practical terms 
irrelevant, and can only harm the GA.
The problem is: what will happen after the vote?
Will the people that showed interest in the GA disappear as magically as 
they appeared, at the rate of 14% every 4 days? Or, once turned the page, 
for bad or good, could we concentrate on Domain-Name-System-related issues?
I trust Jamie in doing this. I trust much less the herds of followers.
This is why I talk about "suicide of the GA". Folks, we risk to spend the 
most valuable time, the month before an ICANN meeting, debating things that, 
albeit important, are not in our mission.
I can find tons of other very important Internet-related issues that we can 
debate: pornography on the Net, the impact of Internet Telephony (social and 
economical), features of BIND, mobile nodes in IPv6, and more. Maybe I can 
propose motions on these as well! I will think about ;>)

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

- --
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, 10 May 2002 14:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

Hello,

- --- "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> bylaws, charter, or whatever  Then there are those who wilfully 
> disregard all of the above,
> acting entirely like some kind of a mob that evidently intends 
> presumptiously to run by its own
> rules. I count myself among the latter.

Thanks for making that very clear. I don't think it helps your cause,
though.
 
> What needs to be understood here is that the tea is being tossed into
> Boston Harbor or -- with a
> nod to our good buddy Jefsey -- the farmers have their pitchforks and
> axe handles at the ready
> (an illustration I recall out of an old history book, I think), and 
> (figuratively speaking) are about
> to storm the Bastille. 

A true revolutionary wouldn't be staging the equivalent of a electronic
sit-in. Groups who stage a sit-in at the Dean's office, singing "Hell
no, we won't go" for days on end aren't taken seriously by the folks
who matter. The politics of subverting the purpose of the GA, for a bit
of embarrassing PR, should be opposed by the Chair. PR simply for the
sake of PR, without actually offering up concrete solutions to problems
is a waste of time, and destructive, in my view.

While we're at it, why don't we have a vote on the following topics:

1) DNSO GA Declares There's Too Much World Poverty -- rebid the UN!
2) DNSO GA Declares Pollution is a Bad Thing -- rebid the Congress!
3) DNSO GA Declares Al Gore invented the Internet -- rebid the
Presidential Vote!

The revolutionaries mentioned above didn't succeed via press releases
or votes. They offered a new order, and created momentum for their
causes and ultimately succeeded. What is your New Order? Sending it
back for a rebid tells me only that folks reject the status quo, but
offer no alternatives. While some might thrive on "chaos" and "shaking
up the establishment" just for the sake of causing disorder, they don't
begin to be taken seriously until they offer something concrete.

That's the difference between a whiner and a visionary. A whiner simply
complains and complains, and offers nothing. The whiner knows only how
to whine. The visionary offers a solution, and has the courage to take
the possible rejection of that vision. The visionary with supporters
becomes a leader. Thus, I close by simply asking:

1) What is the "New Order", i.e. the alternative vision?
2) Why not vote on #1?

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th!
http://shopping.yahoo.com
- --
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, 10 May 2002 23:19:34 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

t byfield wrote:

> if you notice a spike in interest in the GA, it may because the
> GA is finally doing something interesting.

Instead of focusing on such boring things as deleted domain name 
handling  (and domain hoarding), the WLS proposal, whois bulk access? 
  As opposed to doing its job and actually trying to channel public input 
on domain name policy into the ICANN process?

Quite frankly, if such topics are too uninteresting even for the part of 
the public which claims to follow ICANN issues, there is no reason at 
all for that public to participate in ICANN policy-making. I still 
refuse to believe that.
- -- 
Thomas Roessler (mobile) <[email-masked]>
- --
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, 10 May 2002 17:29:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] other approaches and concerns

We are certainly going out of our way to make new people welcome, aren't
we?

Meanwhile the committee on icann Board independence (spelled "reform") is
busy giving us the slightly modified Lynn Plan.

On Fri, 10 May 2002, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> The problem is: what will happen after the vote?
> Will the people that showed interest in the GA disappear as magically as 
> they appeared, at the rate of 14% every 4 days? Or, once turned the page, 
> for bad or good, could we concentrate on Domain-Name-System-related issues?
> I trust Jamie in doing this. I trust much less the herds of followers.
> This is why I talk about "suicide of the GA". Folks, we risk to spend the 
> most valuable time, the month before an ICANN meeting, debating things that, 
> albeit important, are not in our mission.

- -- 
		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, 10 May 2002 17:34:05 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

George asks:  "What is the "New Order", i.e. the alternative vision?"

How about what we were orginally promised?  An ICANN with membership 
provisions, and a structured At-Large with nine elected Board directors.
- --
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, 10 May 2002 18:31:36 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Motion #1 - List of Supporters

Jamie,
I can confirm that the following, non-exhaustive, list of members have
expressed explicit support for the text of Motion #1 to go forward for a
Vote of the whole Assembly. Some of those named below have indicated their
agreement offlist. This record is being provided in compliance with the GA
Chair's terms for the Motion to go forward, specifically that the text of
the Motion and Names of 10 supporters be posted to the GA list by Friday May
10th. This requirement may or may not still be applicable.

James Love
Danny Younger
Joanna Lane
Jeff Williams
Darrell Greenwood
Joop Teernstra
Michael Froomkin
David Farrar
Dan Steinberg
Milton Mueller
Shari Steele
Jeanette Hoffman
Jonathan Weinberg

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, 10 May 2002 15:40:58 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

Friday, May 10, 2002, 12:56:23 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> turns you on. But legal nitpicking is going to get you nowhere  -- get 
> substantive, and tell us how
> it is that ICANN is a blessing to humanity.

You miss the point by thinking that this is the primary issue.

The fact is that I agree with the criticism of ICANN, and with MOST of
the text being used in the statement, and if it was being made
appropriately, I'd most likely add my name to it despite concerns over
some of the wording.

But it is not appropriate for it to be a statement OF the GA.  The
effects of doing that will be detrimental to efforts to increase
public participation and input into the dns policy process with either
the current ICANN, a reformed ICANN, or a successor organization.

THAT is the reason why this motion should not be considered in the GA.

- -- 
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, 10 May 2002 15:44:08 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] other approaches and concerns

Friday, May 10, 2002, 2:29:41 PM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> We are certainly going out of our way to make new people welcome, aren't
> we?

> Meanwhile the committee on icann Board independence (spelled "reform") is
> busy giving us the slightly modified Lynn Plan.

While Jamie and people like you are keeping the GA focused on this
rebid statement silliness instead of drafting statements regarding
important issues like that.

- -- 
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, 10 May 2002 18:46:39 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

I agree with Thomas that members of the GA should be contributing to 
discussion on the issues of WHOIS bulk access, deletes and the WLS proposal.  
However...

The bulk WHOIS issue was referred to the DNSO on Jan.22 and remanded to a 
Task Force chaired by Marilyn Cade (that in typical task force fashion has 
done nothing to attend to the issue).

The Board next called for a comprehensive DNSO review of the issue of deletes 
and the WLS proposal, and this topic was again remanded to another task force 
chaired by Marilyn Cade (and other than one comment put forth by Thomas and 
apparently ignored by all other task force members, this task force also has 
done nothing to address the issue).

For some reason which I can't fathom, Thomas likes the task force concept and 
has advocated on its behalf in the Names Council teleconferences.  I view 
such task forces as an insult to the General Assembly, and no more than an 
oppressive tool that denies us our right to full and unfiltered participation 
in policy discussions within an appropriate list environment.

By eliminating open working groups, the Council has killed off effective 
member participation in relevant discussions.  We cannot post to these closed 
task force lists, and if our "representatives" choose not to forward our 
relevant comments (as has been the case) there remains not much incentive for 
us to contribute. 

When you look at some of these task forces you will note that half of the 
appointed members never bother to participate, and that "discussion" is 
almost non-existent.  Less than half of the members of the Council are even 
subscribed to the GA list, and GA discussions almost never make their way 
onto a task force list.  

Most of you will recall the efforts of the Review Working group.  That 
effort, within three weeks, produced 1500 comments and a comprehensive 
document.  What has the transfers task force accomplished in the last three 
weeks?  4 comments.  How many comments have there been on the .org RFP?  4 
comments.  How many task force comments have there been on the WLS proposal?  
1 comment.  

This is pathetic.  

The problem is not a lack of interest on the part of the GA.  The problem is 
that we are being denied the open working groups which made it possible for 
us participate in a meaningful fashion.  If Thomas believes that we should be 
participating to a greater degree in a discussion of the "relevant issues", 
let him start advocating for the return of the Working Group or the 
elimination of the Council that has denied us our participatory rights.

As I do not wish to exceed the quota of five daily postings, let me add that 
I support the text of Jamie Love's motion #1 so that our Chair can duly 
record my name as being in support of holding the vote.

- --
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, 10 May 2002 20:15:48 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Registrar Advisory Concerning Whois Data Accuracy

Today's Registrar Advisory Concerning Whois Data Accuracy warns that 
Registrars are required to obtain contact information from registrants, to 
provide it publicly by a Whois service, and to investigate and correct any 
reported inaccuracies in contact information for names they sponsor.  
http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-10may02.htm

Perhaps the first claim that could investigate is below (note the lack of 
registrant fax, phone or email address):

Domain Name: inta.org   

Name servers: 
    ns1.nac.net
    ns2.nac.net

Creation date: Feb 23 1995 00:00:00
Expiration date: Feb 24 2011 00:00:00

Registrant Contact:
   NA
   International Trademark Association   (NA)
   NA
   1133 Avenue of the Americas
   New York, NY 10063-6710
   New York, NY 10063-6710
   US

Billing, Administrative Contact:
   NA
   International Trademark Association   (NA)
   NA
   1133 Avenue of the Americas
   New York, NY 10063-6710
   New York, NY 10063-6710
   US

Status: PROTECTED
  Note: To help prevent malicious domain hijacking and domain 
        transfer errors, the registrar has protected the registrant 
        of this domain name registrant by locking it.  Any attempted 
        transfers will be denied at the registry until the registrant 
        requests otherwise. The registrant for the name may unlock 
        the name at any time at the current registrar in order for 
        a transfer initiation to succeed 
- --
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, 10 May 2002 20:42:26 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] reform proposal

IF the U.S. Congress invited you to testify, where should they send the invitation? Are you interested in testifying on behalf of your INEGroup members? 

Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 9:23 PM
To: Eric Dierker
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] reform proposal

Eric and all assembly members,

  I can only speak for our [INEGroup] members to address your
remarks below.  Our members are currently in process on three
fronts presently.  Jamie's motion for rebid is predominant
right at the moment.  We are in process on voting on it
ourselves.  I will post our results on the GA when the
Balloting is completed, this evening or tomorrow
sometime.  Of course as always our [INEGroup's]
decision and voting record will be filed with the FEC
as usual.  And the results will be sent to the
DOC/NTIA along with other individual govt.
officials that have specifically requested same...

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Marilyn,
>
> I must assume, that; Jeff speaks for his group, Ross speaks for his, Jamie
> for his, and so on.  What I would like to know is what your group thinks on
> these issues.  A bunch of stock in the IT area is going in the ----can.
>
> Do you think that reform here can help?
> Wouldn't a rebid bolster and breed some new confidence?
> Reliability and Stability of the Net help, but perceptions are actually more
> important.  Can your group help here?
> IPv4 is clearly a toy.  Is AT&T hooked up with the China Movement, away from
> ICANN and the few year old experiment?
> What is your companys' reason for supporting ICANN in that technology has
> passed them by, by at least two years?
>
> Can you be candid on these issues which are at the crux of your questions?
> What is your company doing to route around the problems caused by the DoC?
>
> Answers to these questions would help discussion and lead us dotcommoners to
> a better understanding.
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> > Kristy and others,
> >
> > I would welcome hearing from the GA as Kristy suggests -- the recently
> > released papers from the Evolution and Reform Committee offer a new
> > opportunity for input. Can the GA develop comments for the questions
> > raised by those papers, even if it is only some of the questions?
> >
> >
> > I know time is short for everyone.
> >
> > Marilyn
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kristy McKee [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 3:30 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: [ga] reform proposal
> >
> >
> >
> > Folks, if we are really considering this proposal, why don't we start
> > by  listing all the processes we want to change or list what we want?
> > How will  the decision makers know who to choose if we don't
> > communicate what we want?
> >
> > For example, if you want Ben and Jerry's New York Super Fudge Chunk ice
> >  cream, don't tell me you are tired of chocolate yogurt and want me to
> > get  you something else in the genre of ice cream.  Tell me you want
> > Ben and  Jerry's New York Super Fudge Chunk ice cream.  In reference to
> > ICANN, let's  be specific about what we WANT, in addition to letting
> > them know why we  don't want ICANN.
> >
> > Our Names Council is discussing this topic and has requested our input.
> >  I  am willing to set aside some time to help come up with a response
> > for them  to ponder and perhaps include in their findings/report.  I
> > would think  those who are sincere would also volunteer to participate
> > in such a  group.  We even have an extra publicly archived mail list we
> > could use to  move the process/work to another location, one without a
> > five post limit.
> >
> >
> > :)
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> http://www.Hi-Tek.com
> Reality in a Digital World
>
> The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended for the person or
> entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential and/or
> privileged material.  Any review, retransmission or other use of, or
> taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
> entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.  If
> you receive this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete
> this material from any system.  Thank you!
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Sat, 11 May 2002 03:03:44 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrar Advisory Concerning Whois Data Accuracy

- --=======63D53647=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-16041667; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 02:15 11/05/02, [email-masked] said:
>Today's Registrar Advisory Concerning Whois Data Accuracy warns that
>Registrars are required to obtain contact information from registrants, to
>provide it publicly by a Whois service, and to investigate and correct any
>reported inaccuracies in contact information for names they sponsor.
>http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-10may02.htm

Dear Dan,
the quoted document says
<quote>
Subsection 3.7.7.1 of the RAA requires registrars to include in their 
registration agreement with each registrant a provision under which the 
registrant promises to "provide to Registrar accurate and reliable contact 
details and promptly correct and update them ... ." Although 3.7.8 
envisions that ICANN may develop a policy requiring registrars to verify 
the contact details at the time of registration, ICANN has not yet done so. 
Nonetheless, registrars will find that implementing readily-available 
techniques to verify the format of data in the registration process (such 
as screening for blank fields or checking that addresses have valid post 
codes) will diminish the need for manual processes that would later be 
necessary to comply with the requirement to investigate reported inaccuracie
</unquote>

I would certainly like to comply with this for the registrars I develop an 
interfece for. I would just need however your help: could you please 
provide me with an updated list of the world's post codes to check the 
consistency of the registrants entries.
I thank you for your help
jefsey

- --=======63D53647=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-16041667
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

- --=======63D53647=======--

- --
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, 10 May 2002 20:52:16 -0500
From: "Hugh Blair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar Advisory Concerning Whois Data Accuracy

> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of jefsey
> 
> I would certainly like to comply with this for the registrars I develop an 
> interfece for. I would just need however your help: could you please 
> provide me with an updated list of the world's post codes to check the 
> consistency of the registrants entries.
> I thank you for your help
> jefsey

Of course you could use something like:
http://www.hiddenregistration.com/

- -Hugh

- --
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, 10 May 2002 21:50:15 -0700
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ...but we lied

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> We said that "Our goal is to replace each and every one of the current Board
> members as soon as possible", ...but we lied.
> 
> We said that "it is ICANN's highest priority to complete the work necessary
> to implement a workable At-Large membership structure and to conduct
> elections for the nine At-Large Directors that must be chosen by the
> membership", ...but we lied.
> 
> We said that "The bylaws now make it clear that the Board has an
> unconditional mandate to create a membership structure that will elect the At
> Large Directors of the Board", ...but we lied.
> 
> We said that we will reserve Article II of our Bylaws "for use when the
> Corporation has members", ... but we lied.
> 
> We said that ICANN will "operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open
> and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure
> fairness" ... but we lied.
> 
> We said that "ICANN must facilitate the translation of final documents into
> various appropriate languages" ...but we lied.
> 
> We said that the task of the Independent Review Panel Nominating Committee
> "is well underway, and should be fully implemented within a few months"
> ...but we lied.
> 
> We said that "Some remain concerned that the Initial Board could simply amend
> the bylaws and remove the membership provisions that we have just described
> above. We commit that this will not happen." ... but we lied.
> 
> How many more lies to the US Government should be tolerated?  Would anyone
> like to offer a rationale as to why this incumbent ICANN management should be
> trusted?  All I see is lies and more lies.

Interesting, but it would be moreso if you gave
attributions for your quotes.

I'm not doubting that these things were said, or
that ICANN mangement has failed to live up to
various stated intentions, but I'd like to know
the sources.
- --
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: Sat, 11 May 2002 13:26:02 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] An alternative motion text- friendly amendment

At 11:51 a.m. 10/05/2002 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Whereas there are certain basic principles which have to be honored
>         by an entity coordinating key Internet resources in order to
>         gain the trust of the Internet community,
>
>Whereas these principles include transparent process, broad input into
>         policy-making, which must include meaningful individual
>         and non-commercial participation, and accountability (including
>         independent review of decisions),
>
>Whereas there is a widespread perception that ICANN is moving away
>         from these principles, in particular by stalling or abandoning
>         processes for the implementation of an independent review
>         system and for participation of the Internet community at
>         large in ICANN oversight,
>
>the General Assembly of the DNSO reminds the ICANN Board that it must
>adhere to these principles in any reform proposal and make it
>sufficiently known how proposed reforms provide improvements regarding
>these principles. Should the ICANN reform process fail to provide
>significant improvements in these regards, it is the international
>Internet community's and governments' task to consider how all of or
>parts of ICANN's responsibilities could be transferred smoothly to one
>or more new or existing organizations which are accountable to the
>international Internet community as a whole, have clearly defined
>missions and are not only under the sole control of a national
>department of commerce, without endangering the stability of the DNS
>or the Internet as a whole. In the meantime, all groups of the Internet
>community are   called to deliver their input on reforms needed.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I commend Alexander for drafting this alternative text.

One suggestion: to insert after "Should the ICANN reform process fail to 
provide
>significant improvements in these regards,

>*as evidenced by unambiguous Board resolutions at the Bucharest meeting* , 
>(and change the rest of the sentence to a slightly more relevant)

it is the consensus of this Assembly that in that case the US DoC needs to 
consider how all of or parts of ICANN's responsibilities could be 
transferred smoothly to one
or more new or existing organizations which are accountable to the
international Internet community as a whole, have clearly defined
missions and are not only under the sole control of a national
department of commerce, without endangering the stability of the DNS
or the Internet as a whole.

I would favour that a motion amended along these lines, after due debate, 
would be taken to a vote as well, along with motion #1.

(Caveat: I am not aware of any existing organizations capable to take on 
ICANN's jobs that have a mechanism to be "accountable to the international 
Internet community as a whole" and any New organizations starting from 
scratch will immediately be subject to the same corporate dealmaking 
responsible for ICANN's bootstrapping)

More debate on these substantive points is needed prior to the vote.

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 21:59:23 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

[email-masked] (Fri 05/10/02 at 11:19 PM +0200):

> >if you notice a spike in interest in the GA, it may because the
> >GA is finally doing something interesting.
> 
> Instead of focusing on such boring things as deleted domain name 
> handling  (and domain hoarding), the WLS proposal, whois bulk access? 
> As opposed to doing its job and actually trying to channel public input 
> on domain name policy into the ICANN process?

ICANN is not a process, and its trajectory from its inception to
the current situation has made a mockery of process within ICANN.
nevertheless, it relies very heavily on a nebula of dog-and-pony 
shows to shroud its actions. this rebid vote is a rare chance to 
make a clear statement from 'within' ICANN that the *fundamental*
transformation it intends to pass off as supported by 'consensus' 
is not in fact supported by consensus. that is, imo, far more im-
portant than the issues you mention above. but that claim is NOT 
tantamount to dismissing the importance of those issues.

> Quite frankly, if such topics are too uninteresting even for the part of 
> the public which claims to follow ICANN issues, there is no reason at 
> all for that public to participate in ICANN policy-making. I still 
> refuse to believe that.

if people don't follow your lead there's no reason for public in-
put? it might be more accurate to say that if people *do* follow
your lead there will be no opportunity for public input. 

cheers,
t
- --
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, 10 May 2002 19:28:44 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1

At 11:19 PM 10/05/02 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>Instead of focusing on such boring things as deleted
>domain name handling

That has been an issue that ICANN has been aware of for
many months. There was near consensus prior to Accra that
a uniform 30 day grace period was a Very Good Thing (I was
one of those not part of that consensus, I'd prefer more
than 30 days; but whatever, rough consensus works for me).

So what has the ICANN braintrust done with that in those
many months? Zilch. Zero. In a word, nothing. But one is
supposed to focus and continue pouring time and effort
down that black hole? Even I'm not that stupid.

>   (and domain hoarding),

Well that one goes back much more than a year. Again there
is near universal consensus that it is a Very Bad Thing.
And ICANN has done, er, um, approximately nothing. And as
near as anyone can tell they will continue to do, er, um,
approximately nothing. But I should spend more time beating
my head against that wall? I haven't got that much more
stupid since my last paragraph.

>  the WLS proposal,

The proposal that received near universal consensual
opposition (other that from Veri$ign sockpuppets)?
So it's dead right? No, it's now winding its way
through ICANN's byzantine maze and will presently
reappear in new and improved form. It will still
receive near universal opposition, but it will carry
the patina of having been through a 'process' so will
be allowed to proceed. But I should work hard to be
part of that patina? Sorry, still not that stupid.

>whois bulk access?

Another non-starter amongst just about everyone for
well more than a year. So is it dead and gone? Nope.
It's getting worse. So again, if I expend time and
energy on this it will magically reverse direction,
right? Sigh. I'm done repeating myself.

>Quite frankly, if such topics are too uninteresting
>even for the part of the public which claims to follow
>ICANN issues, there is no reason at all for that public
>to participate in ICANN policy-making. I still refuse to
>believe that.

They aren't too uninteresting for the likes of me, a member
of the public who claims to follow ICANN issues. The problem
is that, as your own examples show, there is no place at all
for the public to participate in ICANN policy-making. Assuming
that there was, it would be studiously ignored. I still refuse
to believe that anyone (credible) can argue otherwise. -g

- --
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, 10 May 2002 19:43:21 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar Advisory Concerning Whois Data Accuracy

At 08:52 PM 10/05/02 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:

> > I would certainly like to comply with this for the registrars I develop an
> > interfece for. I would just need however your help: could you please
> > provide me with an updated list of the world's post codes to check the
> > consistency of the registrants entries.
>
>Of course you could use something like:
>http://www.hiddenregistration.com/

To find postal codes? And it's called full disclosure,
look into it. -g

- --
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 #1182
*************************