Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1194
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, May 15 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1194

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

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 13:25:03 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC teleconf recording MP3 May 14, 2002

Oh  my god! A teleconference recording that didnt get
mysteriously erased or suffer from "power problems"?

Thats a first, now isn't it?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 11:18 AM
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
>
>

- --
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 14:25:09 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New registrations

Thank you very much.     Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] New registrations

:
:
: Jamie,
:
: The Voting Registry includes since today an information
: about registration date, cf.
: http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html
:
: 3 lists are provided:
: DNSO voting registry sorted by Country
: DNSO voting registry sorted by LastName
: DNSO voting registry sorted by Registration Date
:
: BTW, the GA Voting Registry is exactly two years old -
: the first registration were done on 13 May 2000.
:
: Elisabeth Porteneuve
: --
:
: > From [email-masked] Tue May 14 19:45 MET 2002
: > From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
: > To: "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
: > Cc: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
: > Subject: [ga] New registrations
: > Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 15:22:59 -0400
: >
: > I asked earlier if the DNSO would list the names of new voter
registrtions.
: > The best I can do on my own is to compare the May 6 and May 12
: > registrations, which reckon added 57 new names, which are listed below.
: > (the roster went from 527 on May 6 to 584 today).  I personally
recognize
: > (+) the names of  5 of the 57 added in that period.    The DNSO could
make
: > the registration issue more transparent by offering a sort of the
: > registrations by date of registration, including the date field.  This
would
: > allow anyone to see what is going on, or even go back and see what
happened.
: > Of course, wild accusations don't need real data, just sufficient
paranoia.
: > Jamie
: >
:
:

- --
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 11:35:21 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

- --------------030309060800080805080907
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Although not so identified, I recognize the quote from Joanna's post to 
be a quote from
William X. Walsh.  I just want to say that I recognize the point he is 
making, namely, that
the Charter of the DNSO General Assembly does not include provision for 
the kind of
action being taken here.  In that, Mr. Walsh is perfectly correct. 
 Moreover, the notion of
using an entity's own facilities (i.e., the GA mailing list) to "bring 
it down," or anything like
that, may elicit some degree of discomfort and a sense of unfairness.

So my response is this: we in  the U. S. do that all the time, when we 
become so "fed up"
with the conduct of some governmental entity, some office holder, and so 
on, we will take
steps to have that entity or person booted, as in recall, impeachment, 
etc.  In our U. S. law,
we have provisions for such actions; in ICANN, there are none.  But 
there should have
been, and the lack thereof is just one more instance in which the 
fundamental structure of
ICANN was flawed from the outset -- designed to protect the original 
Directors and ensure
that for all time, the common people who use the Internet will never 
have the slightest say
in how it is operated, and ICANN -- itself far exceeding the scope of 
authority of its charter,
creates policy that affects all of us.  The present movement represents 
a statement to the
effect that "two can play at that game" -- if it takes making up our own 
rules as we go along,
we shall do so. So Mr. Walsh is technically quite correct, but the 
shackle that he rightly
points out is being broken nevertheless.

Bill Lovell

Joanna Lane wrote:

>>This motion is not topical to the DNSO General Assembly, is outside
>>the scope of its charter, and should be ruled out of order by the
>>Chair.
>>
>
>This is a very straightforward question and the answer is simply no, it is
>not out of order. There is no doubt in my mind that Motion #1 is a viable
>restructuring proposal, whereas Motion #2, is not, it seeks only to remind
>ICANN to do its job properly, something we have repeatedly expressed as an
>Assembly for years with no positive results so far.
>
>Even if you do not agree with that contention, Motion # 1 can only be out of
>order on the basis that it is not possible for an entity to fail, which of
>course is nonsense, witness Enron, hence the possibility must exist for the
>best interests of the public to be served by replacing ICANN as a whole, the
>mechanism for which is rebidding the ICANN contracts. Therefore, this Motion
>forms part of the GA's restructuring proposal and is valid.
>
>The real objection to the Motion of course is that it does not take the top
>down directive to use the Lynn proposal as a starting point, but rather
>responds to a bottom up initiative that does not even acknowledge the
>existence of the Lynn plan at all.  It might be worth another Motion,
>(Motion #3) to reject the Lynn plan as a whole, thereby opening the door to
>rebidding the ICANN contract as a viable restructuring alternative, but I
>had thought the community sufficiently intelligent to join those dots.
>
>
>>The chair should respect the GA enough to take a public position on
>>this point, as I am not the only one waiting to see the result.
>>
>
>On this we agree.
>
>Regards,
>Joanna
>
>>--
>>Best regards,
>>William X Walsh <[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
>
>

- --------------030309060800080805080907
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
Although not so identified, I recognize the quote from Joanna's post to be
a quote from<br>
William X. Walsh. &nbsp;I just want to say that I recognize the point he is making,
namely, that<br>
the Charter of the DNSO General Assembly does<i> not</i> include provision
for the kind of<br>
action being taken here. &nbsp;In that, Mr. Walsh is perfectly correct. &nbsp;Moreover,
the notion of<br>
using an entity's own facilities (i.e., the GA mailing list) to "bring it
down," or anything like <br>
that, may elicit some degree of discomfort and a sense of unfairness. <br>
<br>
So my response is this: we in &nbsp;the U. S. do that all the time, when we become
so "fed up" <br>
with the conduct of some governmental entity, some office holder, and so
on, we will take <br>
steps to have that entity or person booted, as in recall, impeachment, etc.
&nbsp;In our U. S. law, <br>
we <i>have</i> provisions for such actions; in ICANN, there are none. &nbsp;But
there should have<br>
been, and the lack thereof is just one more instance in which the fundamental
structure of<br>
ICANN was flawed from the outset -- designed to protect the original Directors
and ensure<br>
that for all time, the common people who use the Internet will <i>never</i>
 have the slightest say<br>
in how it is operated, and ICANN -- <i>itself</i> far exceeding the scope
of authority of its charter,<br>
creates policy that affects all of us. &nbsp;The present movement represents a
statement to the<br>
effect that "two can play at that game" -- if it takes making up our own
rules as we go along,<br>
we shall do so. So Mr. Walsh is technically quite correct, but the shackle
that he rightly<br>
points out is being broken nevertheless.<br>
<br>
Bill Lovell<br>
<br>
Joanna Lane wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">This motion is not topical to the DNSO General Assembly, is outside<br>the scope of its charter, and should be ruled out of order by the<br>Chair.<br></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap=""><!----><br>This is a very straightforward question and the answer is simply no, it is<br>not out of order. There is no doubt in my mind that Motion #1 is a viable<br>restructuring proposal, whereas Motion #2, is not, it seeks only to remind<br>ICANN to do its job properly, something we have repeatedly expressed as an<br>Assembly for years with no positive results so far.<br><br>Even if you do not agree with that contention, Motion # 1 can only be out of<br>order on the basis that it is not possible for an entity to fail, which of<br>course is nonsense, witness Enron, hence the possibility must exist for the<br>best interests of the public to be served by replacing ICANN as a whole, the<br>mechanism for which is rebidding the ICANN contracts. Therefore, this Motion<br>forms part of the GA's restructuring proposal and is valid.<br><br>The real objection to the Motion of course is that it does not take the top<br>down directive to use the Lynn proposal as a sta
rting point, but rather<br>responds to a bottom up initiative that does not even acknowledge the<br>existence of the Lynn plan at all.  It might be worth another Motion,<br>(Motion #3) to reject the Lynn plan as a whole, thereby opening the door to<br>rebidding the ICANN contract as a viable restructuring alternative, but I<br>had thought the community sufficiently intelligent to join those dots.<br><br><br></pre>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">The chair should respect the GA enough to take a public position on<br>this point, as I am not the only one waiting to see the result.<br></pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap=""><!----><br>On this we agree.<br><br>Regards,<br>Joanna<br></pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">--<br>Best regards,<br>William X Walsh <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a><br></pre>
        </blockquote>
        <pre wrap=""><!----><br>--<br>This message was passed to you via the <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> list.<br>Send mail to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> to unsubscribe<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).<br>Archives at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a><br><br><br></pre>
        </blockquote>
        <br>
        </body>
        </html>

- --------------030309060800080805080907--

- --
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 14:49:18 -0400
From: Ken Stubbs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC teleconf recording MP3 May 14, 2002

that is an excellent idea.

it might be nice to see some sort of "in-kind contribution" by some party
out there who feels that they & others would benefit from their magnanamous
gesture.

i can assure you that if someone is "up to the task" i can get the "final
product" put up on the website

i am sure we all would be most grateful for this service

ken stubbs
p.s. what a marvelous gesture it might be for INEG to assign this task to
some members of their large hi-tech  workforce.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
To: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 1:09 PM
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
>

- --
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 11:58:59 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

- --------------090408010207020201080808
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Joanna Lane wrote:

>>[Snip]
>>
>>The chair should respect the GA enough to take a public position on
>>this point, as I am not the only one waiting to see the result.
>>
>
>On this we agree.
>
>Regards,
>Joanna
>
>>--
>>Best regards,
>>William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
>>
On this I vehemently disagree with both Joanna and Mr. Walsh.  I don't 
care a rip what the chair's
position is on anything.  That is not the role of the chair, to take 
positions.  The chair is to administer
the voting procedure (ha, ha -- to the extent the GA has one), and it is 
the taking of positions that
led to the unseemly initial attacks on James Love and his motion. A 
chair is supposed to act in a
neutral, unbiased, and objective manner, and asking what his position is 
only exacerbates the
tendency of almost anyone in this mailing list who ever gets a title of 
any kind to act as though they
 had just been anointed as Emperor of the Internet.  (I need not point 
out that that is what ICANN
has done -- that is why it needs to be booted.)

Bill Lovell

- --------------090408010207020201080808
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
Joanna Lane wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">[Snip]</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">The chair should respect the GA enough to take a public position on<br>this point, as I am not the only one waiting to see the result.<br></pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap=""><!----><br>On this we agree.<br><br>Regards,<br>Joanna<br></pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">--<br>Best regards,<br>William X Walsh <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a><br></pre>
        </blockquote>
        </blockquote>
On this I vehemently disagree with both Joanna and Mr. Walsh. &nbsp;I don't care
a rip what the chair's <br>
position is on anything. &nbsp;That is not the role of the chair, to take positions.
&nbsp;The chair is to administer <br>
the voting procedure (ha, ha -- to the extent the GA has one), and it is
the taking of positions that <br>
led to the unseemly initial attacks on James Love and his motion. A chair
is supposed to act in a <br>
neutral, unbiased, and objective manner, and asking what his position is
only exacerbates the <br>
tendency of almost anyone in this mailing list who ever gets a title of any
kind to act as though they <br>
&nbsp;had just been anointed as Emperor of the Internet.&nbsp; (I need not point out
that that is what ICANN<br>
has done -- that is why it needs to be booted.)<br>
        <br>
Bill Lovell<br>
        <br>
        </body>
        </html>

- --------------090408010207020201080808--

- --
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 15:02:04 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] problems with GA listserve

Seems to me that a number of message are being posted more than once.
......  I'm getting all sorts of old messages, again off the list.

jamie

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 14:34:07 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Procedure.

Tuesday, May 14, 2002, 11:58:59 AM, William S. Lovell wrote:
> On this I vehemently disagree with both Joanna and Mr. Walsh.  I don't
> care a rip what the chair's
> position is on anything.  That is not the role of the chair, to take 
> positions.  The chair is to administer
> the voting procedure

The chair is to facilitate consensus in the GA within the confines of
the GA's charter mandated role in the DNSO.

If something is not topical for the GA, it is the Chair's job to
enforce that.  You may not like it, but personally I don't care one
damn bit what you like, Bill.  The GA's role is defined, its scope is
defined, and neither of these motions are within the GA's scope and
role.

- -- 
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: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:40:07 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Court issues TRO against Verisign in deceptive marketing lawsuit

Court issues TRO against Verisign in deceptive marketing lawsuit

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020514/dctu071_1.html

Following a two-hour hearing this morning, BulkRegister, the fourth
largest domain name registrar, won a preliminary injunction against
VeriSign at the United States Federal Court for the District of
Maryland.

The judge agreed there is sufficient evidence in the case to prove
that VeriSign's recent "Domain Name Expiration Notice" marketing
campaign is deceptive. As a result, BulkRegister was awarded a
preliminary injunction. The court found that BulkRegister as well as
its registrants have been injured and would continue to be injured if
the campaign proceeded. Additionally, the judge said VeriSign or other
third-party entities must immediately discontinue deceptive transfer,
renewal or expiration notices to BulkRegister's customers.

- -- 
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: Tue, 14 May 2002 14:45:39 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New registrations

At 08:02 PM 14/05/02 +0200, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

>The Voting Registry includes since today an information
>about registration date, cf.
>http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html
>
>3 lists are provided:
>DNSO voting registry sorted by Country
>DNSO voting registry sorted by LastName
>DNSO voting registry sorted by Registration Date

This doesn't appear to be entirely accurate, the last
seems to be the last ACKgenerated date, not the original
Registration Date. While I am listed here:
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterbyackgenerated.html

and on the other two database sorts as having registered on
2002-05-06, in fact the only thing that happened about then
was I updated my email address as my old mailserver died.

EG: I am listed as voting (and did vote) in April 2001:
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b04fullrecord.html

and have taken part in each vote since I first registered on
or about 2000-05-22. So, while I may be a recent poster (I
figured I'd say something before they turned the lights out),
I joined soon after the opportunity first availed itself.

Such situations as mine thus might skew the data regarding
so-called New registrations. -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: Tue, 14 May 2002 17:46:54 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot discussion

Marc and all assembly members,

  What's wrong is which is which.  In other words which motion is
Jamie's Rebid motion and which is Alexanders seemingly purposfully
confusing Motion?

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

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: Tue, 14 May 2002 23:16:48 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrar Advisory Concerning Whois Data Accuracy

On Sun, 12 May 2002, at 10:44 [=GMT-0700], todd glassey wrote:

> 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.

[...]

> When this was pointed out to Network Solutions (as they were still calling
> themselves then) they said "so what", and well, that was that.

Domains are irrelevant in fighting spam. Often they are fake. It is very
easy to send email with any domain in the From part of the header. (I just
tried to do that to you :-) So NSI got it right this time.

To fight spam, block the IPs of relays (mailservers) that send it,
knowingly or unknowingly. If you run your own mailserver, try ordb.org. I
am very happy with it. It is free.

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

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

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 00:14:37 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] falling dot coms

- --=======2F936450=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-73A14BF5; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

http://www.top-greetings.com/G.py?P=/art/449/ 

- --=======2F936450=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-73A14BF5
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

- --=======2F936450=======--

- --
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 23:33:06 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Proposal for ballot text # 4

James Love proposed the following text:

>====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."
>======================================
>

Well, since we are in the mood for adding confusion, let me propose another 
text.
====Suggested Ballot text # 4================
WHEREAS the major problems with the current situation are:
1) the lack of open and transparent process
2) failure to involve directly all the Internet stakeholders

The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting Organization of Internet 
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) asks the US Department of 
Commerce that, if an open competition for the services now provided by ICANN 
will be held, the bids shall be submitted in an open and transparent process 
to the Internet Community, who will decide the winner with a global vote to 
be held online with the principle of "one individual - one vote".

Anything less would perpetrate the current method of taking decisions behind 
closed doors, and without giving the power to the people that deserve it, 
i.e. the individual users and stakeholders of the Internet.
================================

If Jamie`s motion is in order and in the scope of the GA, well, then this 
one is as well.
As for the chances of having USG listening to us and organize a global 
internet vote, well, if somebody thinks that they will do a rebid just 
because the GA asks, they might think also that we will have the online vote 
to award the new contract.
As for the difficulty of organizing such vote, the objection is moot: if 
ICANN should be able to do it for the AtLarge elections, why on earth should 
USG not be able to do it? In fact, they have the knowledge, the financial 
resources, and all what is needed.

Comments and seconds welcome.
Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

- --
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 23:13:55 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New registrations

For the record, Becky is no longer with DoC, and knowing her new position I 
bet that she might favour a redelegation.
Regards
Roberto

>From: DPF <[email-masked]>
>To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
>CC: "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [ga] New registrations
>Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 07:36:42 +1200
>
> >+     Becky  Burr  USA  Washington, DC
>
>Fascinating.  I hope Ms Burr expresses an opinion on the re-delegation
>issue :-)
>
>DPF
>--
>[email-masked]
>ICQ 29964527
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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 17:51:10 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrar Advisory Concerning Whois Data Accuracy

At 02:44 PM 14/05/02 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:

>Sunday, May 12, 2002, 12:43:34 PM, Gary Osbourne wrote:
>
> > With this advisory, now they have to if anyone asks.
>
>No, they don't have to if someone simply asks.

First para, second sentence here:
http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-10may02.htm

- ----
  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.
- ----

To investigate and correct *any* reported inaccuracies.
That doesn't sound too limiting or any different from
what I wrote.

Below that:

- ----
  Relevant Provisions of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement

  C. Registrar Obligation to Correct Inaccurate Data

  [...] Registrar shall, upon notification by any person of
  an inaccuracy in the contact information associated with a
  Registered Name sponsored by Registrar, take reasonable steps
  to investigate that claimed inaccuracy. [...]
- ----

'Any person' isn't too limiting, but I agree this limits it
somewhat to 'reasonable steps'. Below that the Registrar
advisory lays out what it considers to be reasonable steps:

- ----
  Obligation to Investigate and Correct Reported Inaccuracies

  Subsection 3.7.8 of the RAA obliges registrars to "take
  reasonable steps to investigate" any inaccuracy in Whois
  data upon notification from "any person." In order to
  facilitate compliance with this responsibility, registrars
  should establish a clear mechanism for receiving,
  investigating, and tracking reported inaccuracies in their
  Whois data. In the absence of a clearly designated contact
  or channel for receiving complaints about inaccurate Whois
  data, registrars are responsible for acting upon
  "notifications" that may be received by diverse, and even
  informal, means. This may make it difficult for registrars
  to fulfill their obligations.
- ----

I read this as a requirement for registrars to either set
up an automated system to accept complaints from "any
person" (which isn't very limiting, it *is* if someone
simply asks, as I said), or not set up an automated system
but still accept the complaints regardless of how they are
received (also not very limiting). The advisory goes on:

- ----
  [...] At a minimum, "reasonable steps" to investigate a
  reported inaccuracy should include promptly transmitting
  to the registrant the "inquiries" concerning the accuracy
  of the data that are suggested by RAA Subsection 3.7.7.2.
- ----

This begins by seeming to allow for an automated in/out
system whereby a received complaint could be forwarded
to the registrant for a response. The advisory doesn't
state whether the complainant's identity is kept private,
which seems a rather gaping oversight, unless the intent
is to leave it up to registrars. If the complainant's
identity is disclosed that might cut down on frivolous
complaints. Then again, the registrar would then have
to either leave it up to the complainant to use
accurate data or verify the complainant's identity
(this advisory seems to suffer from progressive faults).

Regardless, even such an automated process would
eventually get labor intensive as once the response
from the registrant was received it appears it would
have to be evaluated by a human. Further:

- ----
  The inquiries should be conducted by all commercially
  practicable means available to the registrar: by telephone,
  e-mail, and postal mail.
- ----

I'm unclear on the meaning of this. Are they saying that
one must use *all* these means? It seems so. But do they
then limit it by saying 'commercially practicable' ie:
if it isn't commercially practicable for the registrar
to use the telephone or postal mail (one hopes they
could afford email) to conduct enquiries, then they don't
have to. Presumably many registrars would then not do so.

Or does it mean by all the listed means *plus* anything
commercially practicable? Or does it mean on a case by
case basis? eg: the registrant is listed as being in my
city, I'll give him a call vs. the registrant is listed
as being in Antarctica, I'll limit it to email. Regardless,
this still implies the need for a human to spend time on it.

Finally, once the registrar receives the data from the
registrant, they have to analyze it, unless they don't
receive any:

- ----
  Cancellation of Registrations in the Event of Material
  Breach by the Registrant

  If the registrant fails to respond "for over fifteen
  calendar days to inquiries by Registrar concerning the
  accuracy of contact details", then pursuant to
  RAA Subsection 3.7.7.2 the registrant is in "material
  breach" of its registration agreement with the registrar.
  That subsection also provides that "willful provision of
  inaccurate or unreliable information" shall constitute
  a material beach of the registration agreement.
  [...] Accordingly, if the registrar's investigation
  results in a determination that the registrant is in
  material breach of its registration agreement, then in
  the absence of extenuating circumstances the registrar
  should cancel the domain registration.
- ----

As an aside, if I read this right, by not responding to
such a requrest within 15 calendar days, the registrant
should have his/her registration cancelled, as there
are probably no extenuating circumstances. Under the
proposed grace period if your domain registration
expired you'd have at least thirty days to rectify it.

If you have inaccurate WHOIS data you'd only have
fifteen days to rectify it. This doesn't make much
sense to me, as one of the main causes of inadvertent
expiration is no longer valid WHOIS info. Therefore
those wanting domains to drop so that they could be
picked up have an incentive to point out inaccuracies,
and they might not care whether they exist. /end aside

Assuming contact is made with the registrant, it is
then up to the registrar to decide whether there are
"extenuating circumstances" or whether there was
"willful provision of inaccurate or unreliable
information". This could be very labor extensive,
and also a potential liability for the registrar if
they cancel a domain and there is a dispute between
the former registrar and the registrant about what
constitutes "extenuating circumstances" or "willful
provision of inaccurate or unreliable information".
There could also be a liability if the complainant
is, for example, a lawyer and/or big corp wishing
to have a domain cancelled and the registrar doesn't
do so, for what it considers valid reasons. So
registrars would be better off in that sense to
spend time and resources on each case than to make
snap decisions.

The least time consuming and safest course for a
registrar might be to assume by default that there
are "extenuating circumstances" in each case.

That is, spend less time on inaccuracies reported
by [email-masked] than those reported by
[email-masked]. It also isn't
impossible to imagine that a registrar may come
to a different reading of the circumstances or
what constitutes willfulness, depending on who
is asking, though that would mean even more time
and resources spent by the registrar.

This isn't a black cloud for everyone though.
Namedrop services (or Verisign's WLS) should
benefit from having more names made available.
In fact the original registrant could use such
a service to get the name back again (under the
WLS they'd be *assured* of getting the name
back again!) and entering different, and not
necessarily accurate, WHOIS info. Repeat as
necessary.

>Otherwise a registrar could virtually bankrupt his
>competitors by hiring people to challenge
>registrations all day long.

Well, within certain not very limiting limits,
it does seem to say that they can do so 24
hours/day. And they probably wouldn't need to
hire too many people, it could be automated.

Apologies for length but perhaps someone could
have pointed out some of the above, and no doubt
more, in what seems a poorly thought out advisory.
Why was it not discussed in advance with (and
even amongst) representatives of affected parties?
This clearly didn't come out of an open,
transparent, bottom up process and it shows. -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 #1194
*************************