Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1187
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, May 13 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1187

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

Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 21:54:20 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ecdiscuss] Re: [ga] Negative outreach norms, board claims regarding consensus in favor of "reform" efforts

Jefsey and all assembly members or other interested parties,

  I have to agree with your assessment of Thomas's comments.
As a European it seems that Thomas is a bit out of step to
put it mildly...

  I am taking the liberty of cc'sing this to ecdiscuss list for
their review as well...

jefsey wrote:

> Dear Thomas,
> This is absolute nonsense
>
> You plead the ICANN is the only chance to balance interests in the mission
> creep area. Where it has  no mandate. No one wants the ICANN to have any
> teeth to defend anyone. No one expects the ICANN to fall on any side. This
> is actually what the consensus OPPOSES.
> ICANN is not a government, it is a small technical registry. It is only in
> being small, in being neutral and in treating everyone equal that it can
> could protect everyone's interests and foster competition. Otherwise it has
> absolutely NO interest and for many interests it is a DANGER they must control.
>
> Public control will not result from a GA vote. It will come after reading
> what you said, to investigate. Why do you think Lynn called the Govs? Have
> you ever called the Cops?
>
> After that you say what we all agree: that mission creep is absurd. And you
> want to make us being absurd telling it? From what you say you are a
> mathematician: I do hope your logic is better with numbers than with names.
>
> As you known I a moderate about, Jamies motion. I think you are right: it
> is urgent to vote it. As you way it will not kill the GA to ask for someone
> reasonable to step in. Why would Lynn have alone the right to call for the
> Govs?
>
> I am going to petition the EEC, will you join us?
> jfc
>
> At 01:34 09/05/02, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> >On 2002-05-08 16:09:40 -0400, James Love wrote:
> >
> >>1.  What is the argument for not having people vote in a GA ballot
> >>measure, if they care about an ICANN issue?
> >
> >The argument, which has, by now, been repeated ad nauseam is that
> >the GA, as a body, is not the appropriate channel to make the
> >statement you are asking it to make.
> >
> >>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.
> >
> >You're mixing a couple of things which should, for the sake of
> >clarity, be treated separately.  I'll try to rehash some arguments
> >which have popped up before in various places.
> >
> >
> >You start by confusing reform process and the Lynn proposal.
> >1. Reform process: It's quite evident that ICANN is not functioning
> >in the manner expected by many.  I'm deliberately saying:
> >"expected".  Because one of the sources for the problems we are
> >currently experiencing are vastly different expectations of what
> >ICANN should do.  Let me give some examples: Verisign and their
> >attorneys at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (in particular, Susan
> >Crawford and David Johnson) are talking a lot about what consensus
> >means.  David coined the phrase of the "consent of those governed."
> >The ICANN they imagine could by the very definition of that
> >consensus not make any policy which is detrimental to the economical
> >interests of Verisign.  This expectation is mirrored when Verisign's
> >Cochetti talks (on behalf of the whole gTLD registries'
> >constituency!) about ICANN as a cooperative effort in Names Council
> >calls.  In the other end of the spectrum, user constituencies (like
> >the business and non-commercial constituencies) and the at-large
> >activists likewise expect that ICANN safeguards their interest
> >against self-interested activities of registries and registrars.  It
> >should be pretty obvious that these expectations are not compatible
> >in any manner, and that an ICANN which tries to fulfill both of
> >these just has to break.  (Likewise, a discussion process on reform
> >which does not address this conflict, but hides it under layers of
> >rhetoric for the sake of a simulation of consensus, is doomed to
> >fail.) Of course, this is not the only source of problems.
> >
> >Also, the very idea to push for a re-bid of functions implies that you do
> >believe that ICANN needs to be reformed quite urgently,
> >doesn't it?
> >
> >2. Reform proposals: I've certainly seen better pieces of English
> >literature. I see better logic from other mathematicians on a daily
> >basis.  I have seen more realistic ideas about government involvement with
> >ICANN.  I have also seen ideas for ICANN which actually respect public
> >participation instead of just talking about it.
> >
> >That said, there is one benefit with the Lynn proposal: It falls
> >clearly on one side of the expectations above.  And that's the
> >users' side, not the suppliers'.  In particular, the ICANN
> >envisioned by Lynn's propsoal is supposed to have the teeth
> >necessary to safeguard user interests.  It is designed in a way
> >which could balance the registries' and registrars' interests.  This is
> >worth keeping in mind.
> >
> >Bad enough, there have been very few realistic ideas about ICANN
> >reform at all.  Note, BTW, that the R&E commitee's policy-making
> >paper is one of the better documents in this area - in particular, it's
> >some orders of magnitude better than the "mission and core values" article
> >published a day earlier.
> >
> >
> >For these reasons, I believe that it's actually safe to state that there
> >is consensus in the larger Internet community (including both James Love
> >and Stuart Lynn) that "something has to be done about ICANN." ICANN's
> >response is the "reform process."
> >
> >
> >The next question you don't address clearly is: What could happen
> >after a re-bid?  (Whatever that means, in detail...)
> >
> >The obvious options are: Another private entity pops up, ICANN
> >remains in charge, but is reformed, and the USG (or some
> >international government-backed organization, such as the ITU) may take over.
> >
> >Of these, the first option (a different private entity) seems to be
> >the one least likely.
> >
> >Of course, some of you folks may be dreaming about the ORSC administrating
> >the DNS root for the public benefit, ideally without any involvement from
> >the IPC and business communities.  That may be a nice dream for some, but
> >it's unlikely to become true.  The key aspect to understand is that the
> >interests in DNS policy are not going to change.  The trademark lobby is
> >there to stay (they wouldn't even have a problem with a USG takeover -
> >that's why they are called "lobby," after all).  Business interests are
> >there to stay.  The GAC is there to stay.  Verisign is there to stay.
> >
> >Why should all these parties start to build an entirely new
> >structure when they can just as well build on the framework
> >(including all the contracts!) established by the current ICANN?
> >Why should any of these interests go for a different private entity
> >for the administration of the DNS - when they can just as well
> >force the current ICANN into a reform process?
> >
> >Thus, the only options which remain realistic are: (1) A reformed
> >ICANN, and (2) an end of the privatization experiment.  You folks
> >don't seem to like the first option.  I find the latter one even less
> >desirable.
> >
> >
> >Put into other words, a "successful" re-bid would mean public-sector
> >control over Internet policy.  Do you want THAT?  If so, please say it openly.
> >
> >
> >
> >Finally, you seem to say that someone has to say something about
> >ICANN reform.  I agree.  However, I believe that such a statement
> >should try to point out perspectives for private-sector control over
> >Internet policy.  What you suggest leads, if investigated closely,
> >just to the opposite result: To a declaration of bankrupcy of the
> >very idea of private-sector control over ICANN's areas of activity. Since
> >the very idea of having a General Assembly like this one is
> >essentially based on the concept of private-sector control, the
> >declaration of bankrupcy would include the GA.  Yes, it would be
> >collective suicide - but not because we'd say something "they" don't like,
> >but because we say that the structure we are part of is
> >fundamentally wrong.
> >
> >(In fact, one may even argue that Jamie's suggested statement would
> >inevitably lead to the dissolution of the GA in a little cloud of
> >logic, as punishment for producing a textbook example of a paradox:
> >Being part of ICANN structure, the GA would say that this structure
> >is fundamentally corrupt, and should not be relied upon.  Respecting this
> >recommendation would imply to ignore the GA.  It would, thus,
> >mean that the recommendation should be ignored.  "The present
> >statement is not true." That's very similar to: "The entity which
> >makes the present statement should not be relied upon.")
> >
> >Of course, there's a lot of fine statements the GA could reasonably make
> >on reform process:  The GA could outline a framework of principles.  It
> >could try to address the contradiction in expectations stakeholders have
> >in ICANN - that contradiction is hidden behind rhetoric once again in the
> >E&R committee's "core values and mission" paper.
> >
> >
> >To re-iterate my recommendation: Don't even try to use the GA as a
> >channel for calling for a re-bid.  Do that through outside channels, which
> >are surely available to organizations like the Consumer
> >Project on Technology. Try to use the GA as what it is: As a channel by
> >which additional input can be directed into ICANN's processes.
> >
> >--
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >---
> >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
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    Part 1.2   Type: Plain Text (text/plain)

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: Mon, 13 May 2002 03:09:07 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] proceedure for getting text approved for vote.

this seems like a pretty good assessment of what i've seen, and i
did take the time to review the recent record. 

i understand the logic behind the reluctance to take up jamie's 
proposal, but it's important to distinguish inasmuch as possible
between personal views and functional duties. the best way to do
that is to be both explicit and rigorous about which hat one is 
wearing when one speaks. ultimately, if people want to make pro-
cess-oriented remarks, the onus falls on them to be clear about 
the status of their remarks within that process, e.g., 'as chair, 
i oppose this on X procedural grounds,' 'i have a concern about
Y and this is a discussion point,' 'i propose the following modi-
fied text Z and have put up a comparative table of texts at this
URL,' etc. unfortunately, that kind of clarity has been lacking.

and since it's been lacking, the most straightforward solution,
i think, is (a) to determine whether jamie's proposal has gained
enough support to merit a vote on its substance, and (b) if it 
has, vote on it. it's my understanding that condiction (a) has 
very clearly been met.

cheers,
t

[email-masked] (Sun 05/12/02 at 11:00 PM -0700):

> The problem here is that there seems to be no one in charge.  As I
> read it, the motion for which the text was originated by James Love
> was touched up a bit by Joanna Lane and posted as Motion #1;
 <...>

- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 11:20:20 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Procedure.

1. There will be a formal vote.

2. The options available for vote will include any resolutions  
supported by no less than 10 individuals (including the proponent),  
which are presented for inclusion with the ballot.  It's up to the  
various proponents to come up with a final version of the text at  
hand.  Please post any such resolutions (including supporters) until 
24:00 Pacific Time.  (This is an extension of the original deadline; 
this extension was, in slightly more vague form, announced by  
Alexander on Friday.) 

I'd suggest that you start the subject line for any such posting  
with "RESOLUTION." I'd also suggest that you _only_ use this prefix  
for final resolution texts which are supposed to go onto the ballot.

NOTE: The resolution proposed by Alexander (although I actually do  
support it) will not be put onto the ballot unless it gets the  
necessary support.

PLEASE SEND YOUR NOTE OF SUPPORT TO ALEX IF YOU WANT THIS TO BE  
INCLUDED WITH THE BALLOT!

3. To evaluate the vote, we'll mostly follow Jonathan Weinberg's  
earlier suggestion: You'll be able to vote on each resolution.  The 
resolution which gets most "yes" votes will be considered to have 
been accepted, under the additional condition that more than 50% of 
voters accepted it.

4. In the case of a tie (i.e., n > 1 motions being accepted with the 
same number of votes), we'll perform a demonstration of applied 
cryptography, and I'll securely toss an n-sided coin, with James 
Love as the other player.  (Jamie: You do have PGP, don't you?)

- -- 
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 19:33:28 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] An alternative motion text

I support this alternative motion.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|> On Behalf Of Alexander Svensson
|> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 7:51 PM
|> To: DNSO General Assembly
|> Subject: [ga] An alternative motion text
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> -------------------------------------------------------------
|> ----------
|> 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. 
|> -------------------------------------------------------------
|> ----------
|> 
|> Please send your comments!
|> 
|> Since a number of participants have called for it, the May 
|> 10th deadline 
|> announced by Thomas Roessler is extended until May 13th. 
|> However, due to 
|> time constraints at the secretariat, the ballot has to begin 
|> in the week 
|> between May 13th and May 17th.
|> 
|> Best regards,
|> /// Alexander
|> 
|> --
|> 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
|> 
|> 

- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 12:18:09 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: How do you "rebid" a cartel ?

- --=======2A2D3F48=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-40FB1F61; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Jim,
thank you for that clear explanation. But I still miss two things:
- - how would the DNS would see it? I understand that addresses would be:
   0.123.12.12.123
   1.123.12.12.123
   2000.123.12.12.123 ?
- - what is needed in the real life to have this happen? I suppose that I 
cannot just name myself with such an adress and expect it to work?
jfc

On 04:10 13/05/02, Jim Fleming said:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
> >
> > So let us get down to basics.
> >
>
>The basics are very simple. Start with the 160 bits (1s and 0s) in each header
>of each packet you send and receive. Two 32-bit fields are for the IP 
>addresses,
>that amounts to 64 bits. Assume you do not touch those, and you have 96 other
>bits to consider. Of those 96, some can not easily be changed, because the
>routers, servers, and PCs use them to get the packets from one place to 
>another.
>You can go thru those 96 as three groups of 32. In the first 32, 16-bits 
>have a
>length and can not be touched, that leaves 16, and of those, 4-bits can not be
>touched, because they contain the "version". Four other bits have a fixed 
>value
>of 5, for this discussion, let's assume you do not touch those. That 
>leaves 8 bits
>of that group of 32 that you can touch. Moving to the second group of 32, 
>there
>are 16 bits you can *touch carefully*, and 16 that are hard to change, but 
>only 15
>of those are critical, which leaves a single bit to play with. Moving to 
>the third
>group of 32, you can not change the 8-bit time-to-live field, the 8-bit 
>protocol
>field can be touched, but carefully, and the other 16-bits are checksum which
>can not be touched. That is all of the bits.
>
>Summarizing, beyond the 32-bit addresses (64 total bits), you have 8 bits,
>plus 16 (maybe), plus 1 unused bit, plus maybe some bits from the 8-bit 
>protocol
>field. Of the 160 bits, you might be able to come up with 8+16+1+8=33 bits
>to modify for routing around the existing 32-bit legacy Internet. You have to
>of course divide that 33 by 2 because you want to have symmetry to go to and
>from locations. Since 33 is odd, you might drop one bit and make it 32 and
>then consider having 16 new bits in each direction. Unfortunately, to get that
>much extra addressing, you may have to give up too much in the 8-bit protocol
>functionality and you might be pushing your luck with the 16-bit field that we
>noted as *touch carefully*. Let's say, that you consider instead of 32 bits, a
>more conservative route and only hope to get 22 bits, with 11 bits in each
>direction. That allows you to not touch 10 of the bits, as well as that single
>spare bit. With 11 bits in each direction, that is an Internet which has 2,047
>more Address Spaces the size of the Address Space which has not been
>exhausted for the past 20+ years. Experts can show that the existing Address
>Space probably has another 20 years before it is exhausted. Without changing
>protocols, we can add thousands more equal size Address Spaces, depending
>on how one wants to design the software.
>
>Assuming that Address Spaces can somehow be added, one then turns to
>the question, "Who would manage those Address Spaces ?". With a couple
>thousand new Address Spaces, it seems most fair to have the TLD Managers
>each help manage an Address Space, via IN-ADDR.[TLD], in parallel with
>IN-ADDR.ARPA. In order to do that, each of the TLD Managers simply
>has to have a "unique" number. It should not cost tens of millions of dollars
>per year to keep a list of the unique numbers for the TLD Managers. Some
>people believe that the TLD Managers may actually be able to keep such a
>list themselves, and via software, self-maintain the list. The DNS 
>provides the
>natural distributed database technology to do this. Even though more than
>2,048 TLDs are possible, the concept is to have the "best-of-breed" TLDs
>be allocated the unique numbers. Given their 11-bit unique number, they can
>then use that in whatever extended addressing approach they want.
>
>Moving to 128-bit DNS, you now have a different problem, there are more
>bits than most people can handle. It is surprising how fast they get used up
>when you look at transition plans. As one example, you can start with 16-bits
>for the UDP or TCP Port. 32-bits can then be used for legacy addressing.
>Another 16 bits can contain that 11-bit unique number plus some bits for
>other interesting uses. That covers 64 bits. The other 64 bits could be used
>in largely the same manner, if you want to encourage encapsulated 
>architectures,
>VPNs, etc. There are many ways to dice up 128 bits. The software developers
>are currently producing many ways, and the marketplace will eventually
>decide on what people prefer, which will also probably be based on what
>actually works and evolves most smoothly from the existing installed base of
>systems.
>
>If you feel this is too complex, you could also consider a more basic 
>approach.
>Consider a 1-bit extension to the current addressing. You can not get much 
>more
>basic than that. If you do that, you could end up with the Even Internet 
>(legacy)
>and the Odd Internet. You could use IN-ADDR.ARPA to manage the Even
>Address Space and IN-ADDR.NET to manage the Odd Address Space.
>
>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
>0:0 .ARPA
>0:1 .NET
>
>With this approach, you only need to find 2 bits in the existing 160-bit 
>header
>to use for the extended address bits. Do you think it would be possible to
>find 2 ?, if we were able to dig up 22 ? Assuming you answer yes, you may
>find it is harder to decide, what 2?, when there are many to choose from.
>Because of that, it may be easier to go for a larger expansion. Some people
>of course toss all cares to the wind and shoot for 128-bits and do not
>consider that not everyone may want to change their software and all other
>systems. Small, incremental changes, have been the norm in protocol
>evolution. It is happening each day with NAT, TOS Routing, Policy Routing,
>NetFilter, RIFRAF Routing, IP Tables, etc. People are making incremental
>changes to route around the legacy Internet's limitations, and the artificial
>road-blocks set up by the I* society's regulators.
>
>The marketplace will now converge on what solutions work and solve
>the problem. This is a classic Beta vs. VHS scenario or a classic Segmented
>Intel x86 Architecture vs. Non-Segmented SPARC/68000 Architecture.
>Some claimed in the 80's that SPARC would blow Intel x86 away. It did
>not happen. Some claimed that Beta would beat VHS. It did not happen.
>Some claim that revolution and an entire new protocol (IPv6) will replace
>IPv4.....we shall see...
>
>Jim Fleming
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>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

- --=======2A2D3F48=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-40FB1F61
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

- --=======2A2D3F48=======--

- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 12:05:48 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] motion support 

- --=======10F47D5D=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-40FB1F61; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

For the records.
I formally support the motion of James Love since no debate occured.
I would support the motion of Alexander should it clearly state a date 
after which no action by the BoD will lead to the James Love position.

This being said I do regret the attitude of the Chair who deliberately 
killed this GA. We elected him to conduct the GA debate not to impeach it. 
We should at the time of the vote have put together a coherent strategy 
using the inputs of James, Alexander, Roberto, and several others and at 
least have addressed my questions. This vote is purportedly made in 
disorder with the clearly annouced intent to lock the GA into discussing 
only the consequences of decisions taken by others and not these decisions 
themselves. I disapprove that euthanasia of the GA which is very surprising 
from our Chair. I only hope that the new voters will help with a new blood.

jfc

- --=======10F47D5D=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-40FB1F61
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

- --=======10F47D5D=======--

- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 14:09:20 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RESOLUTION. Final text and list of supporters

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

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. 

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

The first ten people supporting the inclusion of this motion
on the ballot were the following:

  Alexander Svensson
  Michael Froomkin
  Roberto Gaetano
  Thomas Roessler
  Andrew Deckowitz
  Dan Steinberg 
  David P Farrar
  Vittorio Bertola
  Darryl Lynch
  Marilyn Cade

Best regards,
/// Alexander

PS:
At 13.05.2002 11:20, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>I'd suggest that you start the subject line for any such posting  
>with "RESOLUTION." I'd also suggest that you _only_ use this prefix  
>for final resolution texts which are supposed to go onto the ballot.

- --
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 14:23:04 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf Agenda May 14, 2002

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

DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 14 May 2002 - agenda
- --------------------------------------------------------------------

Coordinated Universal Time UTC 13:00 - see below for local times

Philip Sheppard will be chairing the NC teleconference.
Scheduled time for meeting - 180 mins.

PROPOSED NAMES COUNCIL AGENDA May 14, 2002

1. Summary of last meetings.

2. NC Recommendations 18 - 24 in v9.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020503.Response-Reform-v9.html

3. NC comments on Evolution and Reform Committee working paper on ICANN's
structure and the nominating committee concept
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/working-paper-structure-09may02.
htm

4. OAB

Note:

The next teleconference will be on Wednesday 29 May at 15.00 Paris time.
See http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-calendar.html

(6:00 LA, 9:00 New York, 15:00 Paris, Japan/ Korea 22:00, 23:00 Melbourne)
Local time between April and October, Summer in the Northern Hemisphere
- ------------------------------------------------------------

 Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         13:00
  ------------------------------------------------------------
  California, USA                            UTC-8+1DST   6:00
  Monterrey, Mexico                          UTC-6+1DST   8:00
  Lima, Peru                                 UTC-5+0DST   8:00
  Washington DC, USA                   (EST) UTC-5+1DST   9:00
  St.Thomas, Virgin Islands                  UTC-4+0DST   9:00
  Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST   9:00
  London, United Kingdom                     UTC+0+1DST  14:00
  Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
  Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
  Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
  Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
  Jerusalem, Israel                          UTC+2+1DST  16:00
  Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST  22:00
  Tokyo, Japan                               UTC+9+0DST  22:00
  Melbourne, Australia                      UTC+10+0DST  23:00
  Auckland, New Zealand                     UTC+12+0DST  01:00 (Friday)
  ------------------------------------------------------------
  The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October (with some exceptions)
  ------------------------------------------------------------
  For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

The full participants are the 21 NC members as listed in
http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html DNSO Secretariat and ICANN
Officers.

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 09:37:25 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

[email-masked] (Mon 05/13/02 at 11:20 AM +0200):

> 3. To evaluate the vote, we'll mostly follow Jonathan Weinberg's  
> earlier suggestion: You'll be able to vote on each resolution.  The 
> resolution which gets most "yes" votes will be considered to have 
> been accepted, under the additional condition that more than 50% of 
> voters accepted it.

thomas, this is a really strange -- and totally unnecessary -- method 
to announce so suddenly. what *should* be a yes/no/abstain VOTE ON a 
resolution is, by these rules, transformed into a COMPETITION BETWEEN 
resolutions. the 'suddenness' of this method is a by-product of the 
lack of structure that has characterized this non-process so far. and 
i won't even get into the 50% rule, which strikes me as an effort to
determine the outcome by adopting an arbitrarily complex method.

either you have thought through the consequences of these 'rules,' in 
which case i'm afraid to say that i actively mistrust your exercise of 
your duties, or you haven't thought through these rules, in which case 
it's my obligation to challenge the rules you've proposed. i'd prefer 
to do the latter, which leads me to propose a defensible alternative:

there should be a ballot with a single resolution on with yes, no, and 
abstain options, and the results should be evaluated on a purely com-
parative basis: did more people support or oppose? in the event of a 
tie, the result should be interpreted as a no.

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: Mon, 13 May 2002 09:10:04 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Proposal for ballot text # 3

As indicated earlier, I support the following text to be included on the
ballot, which would provide for a pro-BOD text, so that a range of views can
be presented on the ballot.  I would personally vote against this text, but
support its inclusion on the ballot.

People who want to support Suggested Ballot Text # 3 should indicate so by
24:00 pacific time today.

====Suggested Ballot text # 3================
"The GA wishes to express its confidence in the ICANN board of directors to
address the reform process, and agrees with the general direction of the
Committeee on ICANN reform work so far."
======================================

- --------------------------------
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: Mon, 13 May 2002 07:56:58 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

At 11:20 AM 13/05/02 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>The resolution which gets most "yes" votes will be
>considered to have been accepted, under the additional
>condition that more than 50% of voters accepted it.

Just for clarity, does that mean more than 50% of those
voting, or more than 50% of registered voters? -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: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:56:10 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf minutes April 24, 2002 amended

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

DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 24 April 2002 - minutes
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 April 2002. - amended version

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

List of attendees:

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

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

17 Names Council Members

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

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

Invited ICANN staff and Board member

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

Due to a technical failure there was no MP3 recording.

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

Philip Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference.

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

The Chair added two items:

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

The agenda was approved.

Agenda item 1: Discussion points on v6 conclusions

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

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

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

Recommendation 9 - Policy making.
"all stakeholders"

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

The gTLD Registry constituency proposed: "led by those most affected by the
consensus".
This view was supported by Ken Stubbs who said that stakeholders should be
those who have a specific interest in, beneficiary of, or affected by a
process. Those most proactive in policy development should be those most
significantly impacted by those policies.

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

The gTLD Registry constituency's derogation is noted.

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

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

Ken Stubbs made the point that to understand legislation lawyers go back to
the legislation process. It was important for Stuart and the Board to see
what was meant in this process compared to what ends up on paper.

Recommendation 12 - ccTLDs.

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

Recommendation 13 - gTLDs.

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

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

Ken Stubbs replied that while this was true for dot FR there were ccTLDs
that have same characteristics of TLDs driven by creating the maximum
revenue and they should not be able to hide under the ccTLDs cloak from
issues like the UDRP .

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

Recommendation 12 - ccTLDs.

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

Recommendation 13 - gTLDs.

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

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

Time limits did not allow for discussion of new items.

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

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

Stuart Lynn said that he appreciated the time spent, and careful discussion

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

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

Joe Sims said he was there to listen.

Questions from Names Council members:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Stubbs added that ccTLD users should get involved at a national level.
In addition he added that re tax, the public was victim to public relation
campaigns that spun it so it sounds like user tax

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

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

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

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

Other Business

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

Louis Touton explained that on March 21, Verisign had requested a Registry
agreement amendment for .com and .net. There have been increasing concerns
about deletes. The Board is looking for assurance on the WLS recommendation
that it will be made in the general context of the delete issue.

See:
General Counsel's Analysis of VeriSign Global Registry Services' Request for
Amendment to Registry Agreement
http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-17apr02.htm
VGRS Response to General Counsel's Analysis of VGRS's Request for Amendment
to Registry Agreement
http://www.icann.org/minutes/response-vgrs-wls-21apr02.htm

Philip Sheppard said there were 4 options:

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

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

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

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

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

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

AOB

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

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

The teleconference ended at 17:10

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

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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1187
*************************