Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1192
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, May 14 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1192

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

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 16:36:03 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [GA] ICANN conflict of interest policy and spousal employment

- --=======5DECB54=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-1F1F30E6; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

hmmm, I suppose that t byfield made a lapsus calami and meant:
"i'd like to suggest that the GA consider a resolution advocating a change 
to ICANN's conflict-of-interest policy so that it does not cover anymore 
spousal employment.".
I second that proposition.
I feel there is a consensus on the matter, at least by 2/3 of an 
undisclosed part of the ICANN community, what matches the non-transparency 
prerequisite.
jfc

On 08:04 14/05/02, Jeff Williams said:

>t byfield and all assembly members,
>
>   I think this is a very good idea.  Perhaps the GA should draft a
>resolution or motion to indicate it's concern and desire for such
>a modification to section 7 of the ICANN bylaws addressing
>COI considerations given the recent events???  I would be happy
>to work with anyone of drafting such a resolution of motion
>that the GA members may consider, amend, or otherwise
>evaluate...
>
>t byfield wrote:
>
> > i'd like to suggest that the GA consider a resolution advocating
> > a change to ICANN's conflict-of-interest policy so that it covers
> > spousal employment.
> >
> > cheers,
> > t
> >
> > ----- Forwarded
> >
> > From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: <[email-masked]>
> > Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] Board conflict of interest on .org
> > Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 16:10:42 -0400
> >
> > Those of us who were not in Accra had trouble understanding
> > what happened to the DNSO policy statement on .org. We were
> > particularly amazed by how the Board, without any warning
> > or any supporting public record, reversed position on
> > giving .org to a non-profit organization, proposing to allow
> > major commercial registries to bid for it.
> >
> > Now it is possible to understand better what happened.
> >
> > One of the companies that has been making it clear that
> > they want to be involved with .org is Neulevel. Before Accra,
> > they were making it known that four people were assigned to
> > the .org bid full time.
> >
> > According to the transcript, the Board member who pushed the
> > Board away from non-profit was Robt. Blokzijl. See the transcript at
> > http://www.icann.org/accra/captioning-afternoon-14mar02.htm
> >
> > And guess what? Mr. Blokzijl has a special relationship to
> > Neulevel. His wife was hired by Neulevel a few months after
> > they were married. Lynn Blokzijl is the Neulevel representative
> > in the Netherlands.
> >
> > Maybe this is just a coincidence. Maybe Mr. Blokzijl's insistence
> > that .org be given to a company with "demonstrated experience"
> > and the Board's subsequent vote to permit commercial applicants
> > was unrelated to Neulevel's lobbying campaign. Maybe Neulevel's
> > hiring of Mrs. Blokzijl had absolutely nothing to do
> > with the fact that she was married to a Board member.
> >
> > Even if this is all "coincidence," it doesn't make ICANN look
> > very good. Mr Blokzijl had better recuse himself from the .org
> > redelegation discussion, decision and all other aspects of the
> > process.
> >
> > --MM
> >
> > ----- Backwarded
> >
> >
>
>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
>
>
>
>---
>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

- --=======5DECB54=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-1F1F30E6
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

- --=======5DECB54=======--

- --
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: Tue, 14 May 2002 17:08:41 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot discussion

Dear all,

the ballot b12 will be designed like the one presented below
by Marc Schneiders (and already used in the ballot b05 about 
a year ago). *Every* motion which receives 50% of cast votes 
will consider to be passed. We have asked Joanna Lane to join
the election watchdogs.

Voters will receive a vote outline with a sample ballot,
as always. There will be an official announcement and the
usual webpages on the DNSO site, once the exact date and 
time when the voting starts and ends is announced.

(Sorry that we are under such time pressure, but it is due
to external constraints.)

Best regards,
/// Alexander

At 14.05.2002 15:24, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>What is wrong with:
>
>Motion 1
>[ ] agree
>[ ] do not agree
>[ ] abstain
>
>Motion 2
>[ ] agree
>[ ] do not agree
>[ ] abstain
>
>Making it a one vote thing reduces the chances of either motion getting
>50% to a large degree. In fact, the addition of the second motion could
>then easily be interpreted as an attempt to make sure that there is
>practically no consensus outcome of the vote possible. Or, if one is
>suspicious, as a means to silence the GA.
>
>On Tue, 14 May 2002, at 09:14 [=GMT+0200], Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Thomas Roessler presented one possible ballot:
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >Just in case it helps, the ballot as I imagined it when I wrote my
>> >message in the morning would (roughly) look like this:
>> >
>> >        [ ] motion 1
>> >        [ ] motion 2
>> >
>> >        [ ] abstain
>> >
>> >The options you have: Either abstain, or give yes/no votes to _both_ motions.  In this situation, there are basically three things which can happen:
>> >
>> >- One motion wins (> 50% yes), and the other one loses (< 50% yes).
>> >  In this case, there is no doubt that the motion with > 50 % yes
>> >  should win.
>> >
>> >- Both motions get more than 50% yes.  In this case, there's   obviously more consensus on the one with more votes, so that   should be the winner.
>> >
>> >- Both motions get less than 50% yes.  In this case, there's   obviously no consensus at all, so no motion would be accepted.
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Gary Osbourne noted that one cannot abstain on one and
>> vote yes or no to another.
>>
>> Joanna Lane has stated that these the two motions either
>> -- are not conflicting Motions
>> -- or, if they were, there should be further discussion to
>>    eliminate one or other Motion.
>>
>> My personal opinion is that the two are indeed conflicting
>> motions, that further discussion will probably not lead
>> to a single motion, that we have to take the vote at
>> a point in time where it still is relevant and that we
>> have to take time constraints on the Secretariat into
>> account.
>>
>>
>> Another possible format:
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >As far as I see it, a strict application of these rules would mandate that the
>> >question on the ballot is something like this:
>> >
>> >        Please select one of the following options:
>> >
>> >        [ ] The GA should adopt the "re-bid" resolution
>> >        [ ] The GA should adopt the "basic principles" resolution
>> >        [ ] The GA should adopt none of the above resolutions.
>> >
>> >You'd make precisely one "x" (or abstain).  Obviously, only one of
>> >the options could get more than 50% of all the votes.  In that
>> >case, that option would be adopted.  If none of the options gets
>> >more than 50%, there would be no consensus on the GA, that would be
>> >documented, and we could at least try to return to more important
>> >things.
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Joanna Lane noted that one cannot agree with both or disagree
>> with both, or agree with one, but abstain on another motion
>> with this ballot.
>>
>> Gary Osbourne stated that this might work reasonably well with two
>> options, but wouldn't scale if there was a third option.
>>
>> Please send your opinions on which form of ballot is appropriate
>> (and *please* be as exact as possible).
>>
>> Best regards,
>> /// Alexander
>>
>> --
>> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>>

- --
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: Tue, 14 May 2002 18:18:29 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf recording MP3 May 14, 2002

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

The MP3 recording of the Names Council teleconference is now available at:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020514.NCteleconf.mp3

Happy listening!

DNSO Secretariat

- --
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: Tue, 14 May 2002 12:49:24 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [GA] ICANN conflict of interest policy and spousal  employment

jefsey wrote:

> hmmm, I suppose that t byfield made a lapsus calami and meant:
> "i'd like to suggest that the GA consider a resolution advocating a 
> change to ICANN's conflict-of-interest policy so that it does not 
> cover anymore spousal employment.".

Ha!  Some humour!!!  Nice to see someone can still approach such matters 
with a keen wit; it bolsters a healthy cynical approach to such 
distasteful goings-on.  My word!  tsk tsk.

> I second that proposition. 

I am howling with laughter jfc!!!

>
> I feel there is a consensus on the matter, at least by 2/3 of an 
> undisclosed part of the ICANN community, what matches the 
> non-transparency prerequisite.
> jfc 

This is a Jefsey classic for sure.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Toronto, Canada       
        "Go Leafs go!"
        http://www.mapleleafs.com/playoffs02/news.php?ID=611

- --
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: Tue, 14 May 2002 10:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC teleconf recording MP3 May 14, 2002

Hello,

- --- DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The MP3 recording of the Names Council teleconference is now
> available at:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020514.NCteleconf.mp3

It might improve usability of the recording to break it down into
logical sections (i.e. 15 minute intervals, or something), so that one
needn't download the entire file to review a section of interest. This
would also save on bandwidth.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.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: Tue, 14 May 2002 13:24:46 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Ballot discussion

Marc Schneiders
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 9:24 AM
> To: Alexander Svensson
> Cc: DNSO General Assembly
> Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot discussion
> 
> 
> What is wrong with:
> 
> Motion 1
> [ ] agree
> [ ] do not agree
> [ ] abstain
> 
> Motion 2
> [ ] agree
> [ ] do not agree
> [ ] abstain
> 
> Making it a one vote thing reduces the chances of either motion getting
> 50% to a large degree. In fact, the addition of the second motion could
> then easily be interpreted as an attempt to make sure that there is
> practically no consensus outcome of the vote possible. Or, if one is
> suspicious, as a means to silence the GA.

I agree with this format for the reasons stated by Marc Schneider.

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: Sun, 12 May 2002 12:42:16 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for support until Monday 13th

Alexander and all assembly members,

  I am NOT in favor of this motion as stated...

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> would people who want the motion below to be included
> in a GA vote please send me a short statement of
> support privately (not to the list please -- I will
> post the list of names when it is collected) to
> <[email-masked]> ? Thanks! As you probably
> know by now, 10 (ten) supporters are needed to get
> this included, and they are needed until Monday
> 13th, so please reply as soon as you can.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 have read Joop's friendly amendment and thank him for it
> (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg01011.html).
> The essence of Jamie's motion in my view is that it is
> addressed directly to the US-DoC and only indirectly to ICANN
> (which is also why some people have raised concerns about
> its scope). The motion above is addressed to the ICANN
> Board and in the case that the basic principles mentioned
> above are not honored, calls on the *international* Internet
> community and governments. Joop's amendment would change
> this into an appeal which again goes to the US Department of
> Commerce -- this goes against the intention of my original
> motion and I therefore prefer to keep the original motion
> unchanged. (Of course it is also possible to offer an
> additional motion!)
>
> I have also received an email about the wording "without
> endagering the stability of the DNS". I definitely understand
> that people are tired of this phrase, but when we are even
> considering moving the coordination of key Internet resources,
> we should demonstrate that we are not only playing some game,
> but are acting responsibly and have the stability of the DNS
> in mind. I am of course aware that in a narrow technical
> sense, we are talking about trivial keystrokes (e.g.
> switching DNS root servers within minutes), but on the other
> hand, we know that we are not talking about some purely
> technical switching here. That's why I included the phrase
> even though it has definitely been used a couple of times
> too often.
>
> Thanks and best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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
- --
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: Sun, 12 May 2002 10:44:07 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrar Advisory Concerning Whois Data Accuracy

MY concern is what they actually do to maintain that their email address and
other contact point data is valid. I would be surprised if any of the
registrars ever did anything to verify squat at this point. You know how
many domains from Verisign have addresses that are fraudulent and the like.
My favorite one was a Sex Spammer out of Korea that somehow got a
Verisign-supported  Domain Name for an address that listed it as one of the
city offices of the City of San Mateo California.

This was hysterical since this address was essentially a corporation yard
and the phone number that went with it was an Internal Number for PacBell
Information Services (555-1212 type number).

When this was pointed out to Network Solutions (as they were still calling
themselves then) they said "so what", and well, that was that. The problem
is that if the registrar's are not required to immediately take down any
domain that does not have all the adequate information to support it, and
has any of that information proven to be false or fraudulent in nature, then
what is the point?

By the way, Spammers have two modes of operation. The first one is what I
call "Hit and Miss" which is where they are operating illegally as crackers
and will be sending out toxic spam from compromised systems. This type of
SPAM is unstoppable until some better process controlling who and what has
access to your server and people get off of OS platforms and unprotected
tool sets (ala Microsoft's security fiascos); The second type of SPAM is
that of commercial spammers and this form of unsolicited email is
addressable since it is all propagated form single server-centric nodes. The
Spam Mail of this type is addressable if any level of diligence is done at
the Registrar Level.

Any competent individual can plot a string of domains/name
servers/isp-registrar agents for each piece of spam and if each spammer has
the entire chain of their ISP/Name Services rooted through and those
individuals are shutdown as needed then their actions regarding configuring
their systems to blindly pass spam will change significantly.

Both forms of spam are illegal but the first one is more of a terrorist act.
The second is the product of someone filling your in-basket with email you
did not request and subtly creating subject lines like "In answer to your
question" or better yet "Re: In answer to your question". My other favorite
is the claim that you intentionally subscribed to this by going to some
website. Even if you did, there would be a requirement, by law, that they
tell you up front that by visiting this site they were taking your email
info from the Browser and subscribing you. The problem is that they of
course do not notify you ahead of time that this is going to occur and you
will have to figure out from that point onward how to get off the list...

Oh well - any other commentary?

Todd

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 5:15 PM
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
>

- --
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: Sun, 12 May 2002 12:59:50 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] James Loves motion for rebid - Ballot is overdue (may 10th was the date)

All assembly members,

  James Loves Motion for rebid and many requests for a ballot is
overdue.  Thomas Rossler the Chair promised that it there were
10 supporters for such a motion it a ballot would be provided.
The Tally stands at 18 in favor and 8 against.  Hence there is
sufficient support for a ballot to be issued.

  ALexander Svensson has offered a confusing  but much different
version of Jamie's motion that does NOT include the rebid language...
See:http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg01027.html

  Thomas, time to do your duty!  Do it! And do it right!

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
- --
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: Sun, 12 May 2002 11:04:52 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote

My reasons for supporting the rebidding process were specific to no other
major changes happening in ICANN, but if I had my druthers, an organization
like ICANN needs more than just this reform. ICANN is an ungoverned
nightmare that needs to be restructured if not taken down totally.  I favor
the latter  myself, too.

1)    The first issue with ICANN is that the PSO's need to be restructured
such that there is some culpability in the voting process or standards
management efforts. Who ever heard of a global standards organization
without any formal membership??? That makes the totality of the standards
group the IESG and the IAB which is a real problem in and of itself. The
only way to address this is to pull them into some other formal framework
which they will all object to since it means giving up their unabashed
control over what gets routed on the Internet and what doesn't.

2)    The second issues is the methods and processes that the ASO's use in
operating the Internet Service inferences, that being the DNS and other
Address Management efforts. This is really all of what ICANN was/should have
bee setup to address anyway.

3)    And the third issue is the registrars themselves and this insane set
of rules that they are operated under at this time. The place that the most
reform needs to take place by the way is in the Registrar's process.

One final conclusion - ICANN is only necessary as the bridge between these
three arms of services regarding Internet Processes, and without them under
it, there is no reason for ICANN to exist whatsoever. maybe that is what
needs to be taken back to congress!

By the way - if the only really loud voices objecting to this posting you
hear are ICANN or other ISOC/IETF/IAB/IESG members/management, then ask
yourself why that is. The only logical answer is that they would be
protecting their jobs or that which gives them cultural distinction from
others, i.e. that which makes no longer a mere mortal...

Todd Glassey

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "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 3:03 PM
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
- --
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: Sun, 12 May 2002 11:12:37 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: How do you "rebid" a cartel ?

That is it!

That is stone cold rock solid get in my face and get it done stuff.

This here is truth and right.

You guys get it done and tell me what is wrong and let me deal with the "thugs and
insiders and all other means of total jackasses".

Now would you give some elaboration on this thing called a rebid.  should we ask
for it or not?
Time is short.

e

best wishes to mothers

Jim Fleming wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jefsey" <[email-masked]>
> >
> > 1. you never replace anything, you build in parallel and outdate the
> > previous solutuion.
>
> Jefsey,
>
> I totally agree, we have to be practical. People that have been designing
> telecommunication protocols for the past (too many) years, are fully aware
> of the need and benefits of working "in parallel" with existing systems to
> evolve and migrate. That requires careful planning for evolution. Revolutions
> do not happen (often) unless there is a real paradigm shift or jump. Equipment
> does not get upgraded overnight. Even when equipment is eventually
> upgraded, the new has to often run in parallel with the old, for long periods
> to "soak" and ensure that a cut-over has 0% chance of failure. This is not
> rocket science, but it is also not child's play. There are people on planet
> Earth that do this on a regular basis. Most of those people would not give
> two cents for the opinion of some I* society thug or clown. In some cases,
> you might be talking about a 1 bit change in a protocol. That could require
> six months of testing in a full-scale lab. That could then require another six
> months of testing in a full-scale lab in the field, handling test traffic. Then
> one may be faced with a year of limited introduction in selected field sites.
> In short, you may be looking at two years from the time a small change is
> determined to be useful. That change could last 50 to 100 years. People
> with five years of Internet experience, need to consider the big picture more.
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

- --
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1192
*************************