Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1202
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, May 17 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1202

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 11:28:45 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

- --=======7DBA4C2E=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-15685F5C; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 19:13 16/05/02, James Love said:
>What do you intend to do about people who register to vote in the GA, and
>are "real", unique persons, who are interested in global DNS policy, and
>follow the GA discussions on via the archives, as many do?  What would be
>the logic of excluding them as GA voting members?  Jamie

exclude them if they do not swear allegiance to the Emperor.

As Elisabeth reminded you, to be on ga-annouce is enough. The need for a 
specific voter registration is only a patch due to the use of two non 
compatible software (majordomo and the voting system). Making an 
constitutional requirement out of it is inept. But this is one of the ways 
the Internet was built. Some now say it is cultural and wil contineu making 
a prerequisite of it for ever. Some still want to ride their horse on the 
highways....
jfc

- --=======7DBA4C2E=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-15685F5C
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

- --=======7DBA4C2E=======--

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 07:52:22 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

Everyone who owns a gTLD domain must sign a non-negotiated contract, which
covers terms such as the UDRP and whois, and must bear the costs of
competition or lack of competiton, in terms of prices and service, and must
live with whatever abusive registration practices are permited by this "self
regulation" body.  I  am not concerned about people who don't have computers
having a voice, but it is important that Internet users are represented.  In
my mind, the whole ICANN structure should represent users, and the registrar
and registry bodies should be thought of as businesses that service the user
needs, not the other way around.  The way the DNSO actually works is the
give the registrar and registry interests a lot of votes, and freeze out
most of the user interests.   Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
To: "GA List" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 4:20 AM
Subject: [ga] NC BS

Jamie Love raises a key question about defining stakeholders.
And Jonathan Weinberg has provided a good insight into the divisive nature
of individual involvement.

Let me propose a few starting points.

1. "Stakeholders in ICANN policy development" means those directly impacted
by ICANN policies.
2. Stakeholders in the Internet per se are a different group.
3. The impact of ICANN policy on e.g. Verisign, is of a different order to
the impact of ICANN policy on my non-PC owning Aunt Agatha.

Conclusion:
- - there need to be different levels of involvement in ICANN policy
development.

If you accept the above conclusion, lets review 1) by reference to the
existing DNSO constituencies:
gTLD registries, ccTLD registries, registrars, ISPs - ICANN policies impact
on their business contracts. They are stakeholders.
Business, Intellectual property interests, non-commercial organisation
users - ICANN policies impact on the confidence of themselves and their
customers/members to use the internet for e-commerce or non-commercial
purpose (UDRP, Who Is, domain name availability, security, stability). They
are stakeholders.

Individual registrants - like all consumers -  may be indirectly impacted by
ICANN policies. Is each individual a true stakeholder in the same sense ? I
do not know but their collective interests are clearly valid.  In the
non-ICANN world the voice of consumers in policy development is typically
heard via consumer organisations. Such organisations exist at national and
regional (eg EU) level. This is the format of involvement of registrants as
consumers that the NC envisages in recommendation 19.

The rest of the world including my Aunt Agatha who choose not to seek
involvement in one of these intermediary groups of stakeholders, should be
offered the opportunity of consultation.

Philip

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 07:55:23 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: NCDNHC voting rights

Danny, I am on record on behalf of the constituency on that issue.  

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 12:17 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: NCDNHC voting rights

Marilyn,

I understand that you are on the NC Budget Committee, and that the Committee 
is currently scheduled to meet this coming Monday to consider the plight of 
the NCDNHC.  May I ask if you will vote to deny the NCDNHC their right to 
vote?  What position has your constituency adopted?
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 08:09:48 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

If a subscription to a GA list (discuss or announce) *or* membership in an
official DNSO constituency,  is a requirement for the voter registry, the
voter registry page should probably explain this to people who want to vote.

Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "jefsey" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

: On 19:13 16/05/02, James Love said:
: >What do you intend to do about people who register to vote in the GA, and
: >are "real", unique persons, who are interested in global DNS policy, and
: >follow the GA discussions on via the archives, as many do?  What would be
: >the logic of excluding them as GA voting members?  Jamie
:
: exclude them if they do not swear allegiance to the Emperor.
:
: As Elisabeth reminded you, to be on ga-annouce is enough. The need for a
: specific voter registration is only a patch due to the use of two non
: compatible software (majordomo and the voting system). Making an
: constitutional requirement out of it is inept. But this is one of the ways
: the Internet was built. Some now say it is cultural and wil contineu
making
: a prerequisite of it for ever. Some still want to ride their horse on the
: highways....
: jfc
:

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

:
: ---
: 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
:

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 14:27:23 +0200 (CEST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: New TLD for East Timor?

Zaire (.zr) is now Democratic Republic of the Congo (.cd)
USSR (.su) is now .ru, .by, .ua,...

.zr and .su are no longer used.
But someone wants / wanted to renew .su

> I'd have to look back through the archives of my weblog to confirm it, but I
> believe there's some precedent for changing ccTLD extensions when a country
> changes names. I think ICANN successfully migrated a country to a new
> extension last summer.
>       -- Bret
> -- 
> Bret Fausett | [email-masked] | http://www.lextext.com
> Hancock Rothert & Bunshoft, LLP     Los Angeles, California
>       Follow my ICANN Blog: http://icann.blog.us
> ___________________________________________________________
> Alexander Svensson wrote:
> > East Timor was formerly also known as 'Timor Portuguesa'
> > (hence .tp?). http://www.iana.org/root-whois/tp.htm
> > 
> > The official country name will now be
> > 'Republica Democratica de Timor Leste'
> > (http://www.elaw.org/resources/text.asp?ID=1071)
> > which makes .tl for Timor Leste quite probable.
> --
> 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: Sat, 18 May 2002 00:29:03 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

At 10:20 a.m. 17/05/2002 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:

>Individual registrants - like all consumers -  may be indirectly impacted 
>by ICANN policies. Is each individual a true stakeholder in the same sense ?

Philip,

First of all, Individual Domain Name registrants are much more than 
"consumers". They are also producers of content, directly related to their 
Domain and this is the area where ICANN policies can affect hem directly.

Second: registrants (individual, non-commercial or corporate) are the 
entities who provide the cash for this whole industry, first of all to the 
TLD registries, then down to the whole multilevel structure of registrars, 
affiliates and resellers , with the growing ICANN governance 
bureacracy  leeching off this industry and protecting it.

>I do not know but their collective interests are clearly valid.

What has brought individuals into the GA, the IDNO and the At Large is not 
some vague collective interest but a highly personal interest in a NAME, an 
identifier of themselves or their on-line business.

>  In the non-ICANN world the voice of consumers in policy development is 
> typically heard via consumer organisations. Such organisations exist at 
> national and regional (eg EU) level. This is the format of involvement of 
> registrants as consumers that the NC envisages in recommendation 19.

See above. DN registrants are not consumers of Domains, they are holders of 
certain rights that must be respected.

>
>The rest of the world including my Aunt Agatha who choose not to seek 
>involvement in one of these intermediary groups of stakeholders, should be 
>offered the opportunity of consultation.

If we speak about the GA and the DNSO, "the rest of the world" is what the 
At Large is about. Here it is a distraction.

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 14:57:05 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC BS

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_00B9_01C1FDB3.1C339380
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Joop, thank you for your comments. Are you saying that the majority of =
individuals currently wishing to be engaged in ICANN and outside of the =
constituency structure are not consumers but:

"producers of content, directly related to their Domain" ...with a =
subsequent "highly personal interest in a NAME, an identifier of =
themselves or their on-line business".

In other words such individuals are typically unincorporated businesses =
(profit or not for profit), sharing a lot of common interest with the =
business constituency or non-comms, but are today unable to join the BC =
or non-coms because they choose to trade as individuals rather than be =
incorporated as SMEs or organisations ?

If yes this perspective, and therefore the way we incorporate these =
stakeholders, is important. What helps is to differentiate the interests =
of individuals as providers from individuals as users.=20

Philip

- ------=_NextPart_000_00B9_01C1FDB3.1C339380
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2715.400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Joop, thank you for your comments. Are you saying =
that the=20
<U>majority</U> of individuals currently wishing to be engaged in ICANN =
and=20
outside of the constituency structure are not consumers =
but:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>"producers of content, directly =
related to their=20
Domain" ...with a subsequent&nbsp;"highly personal interest in a NAME, =
an=20
identifier of themselves or their on-line business".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>In other words such individuals are typically =
unincorporated=20
businesses (profit or not for profit), sharing a lot of common interest =
with the=20
business constituency or non-comms, but are today unable to join the BC =
or=20
non-coms&nbsp;because they choose to trade as individuals rather than be =

incorporated as SMEs or organisations&nbsp;?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>If yes this perspective, and therefore the =
way&nbsp;we=20
incorporate these stakeholders, is important. What helps is to =
differentiate the=20
interests of individuals as providers from individuals as&nbsp;users.=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_00B9_01C1FDB3.1C339380--

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 09:15:36 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

         I don't think I provided any insights into "the divisive nature of 
individual involvement"; rather, I provided insight into the divisive 
nature of attempts to *exclude* individuals from involvement.  Let's be 
clear:  Under the NC proposal, none of the past chairs of the GA -- not 
Roberto, not Danny, not Thomas -- would have *any* avenue for participation 
in domain-name policy development, except as filtered through national or 
supranational "consumer organizations," or through after-the-fact "public 
consultation."  This is wrong on two levels.  First, it is wrong because, 
as Jamie and others have pointed out, individual registrants are 
stakeholders every bit as much as business registrants (if you will, they 
are as much "directly impacted by ICANN policies").  Second, it is wrong 
because excluding this set of contributors from the policy process will 
lead to bad (and skewed) decisionmaking.

Jon

At 10:20 AM 5/17/2002 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>Jamie Love raises a key question about defining stakeholders.
>And Jonathan Weinberg has provided a good insight into the divisive nature 
>of individual involvement.
>
>Let me propose a few starting points.
>
>1. "Stakeholders in ICANN policy development" means those directly 
>impacted by ICANN policies.
>2. Stakeholders in the Internet per se are a different group.
>3. The impact of ICANN policy on e.g. Verisign, is of a different order to 
>the impact of ICANN policy on my non-PC owning Aunt Agatha.
>
>Conclusion:
>- there need to be different levels of involvement in ICANN policy 
>development.
>
>If you accept the above conclusion, lets review 1) by reference to the 
>existing DNSO constituencies:
>gTLD registries, ccTLD registries, registrars, ISPs - ICANN policies 
>impact on their business contracts. They are stakeholders.
>Business, Intellectual property interests, non-commercial organisation 
>users - ICANN policies impact on the confidence of themselves and their 
>customers/members to use the internet for e-commerce or non-commercial 
>purpose (UDRP, Who Is, domain name availability, security, stability). 
>They are stakeholders.
>
>Individual registrants - like all consumers -  may be indirectly impacted 
>by ICANN policies. Is each individual a true stakeholder in the same sense 
>? I do not know but their collective interests are clearly valid.  In the 
>non-ICANN world the voice of consumers in policy development is typically 
>heard via consumer organisations. Such organisations exist at national and 
>regional (eg EU) level. This is the format of involvement of registrants 
>as consumers that the NC envisages in recommendation 19.
>
>The rest of the world including my Aunt Agatha who choose not to seek 
>involvement in one of these intermediary groups of stakeholders, should be 
>offered the opportunity of consultation.
>
>Philip
>
>
>

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 06:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: technizmo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

- --- Philip Sheppard <[email-masked]> wrote:
> In the non-ICANN world the voice of
> consumers in policy development is typically heard
> via consumer organisations.

...and this is a good thing?  Those consumer
organizations normally form as the sole recourse
against abuses from the industry's providers, in the
absence of proper representation in the process.

If the non-existence of a certain group of entities
would cause the end of an ENTIRE industry, including
the disband of any regulatory organizations for that
particular industry, it stands to reason those
entities hold a stake in the process.

Aunt Agatha aside, I suspect there are more than
several user entities who have a direct active
interest in ICANN and Internet regulation in general,
in the same way they have an interest in their own
houses.  They pay for both.

- -Jason Graff

__________________________________________________
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: Fri, 17 May 2002 09:43:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

I cannot but read this as an attempt to twist words.

As has been abundently clear in this thread, all domain name holders are
substantially impacted by ICANN policies, not least the UDRP.  This makes
them 'stakeholders'.  All of them.

On Fri, 17 May 2002, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Joop, thank you for your comments. Are you saying that the majority of individuals currently wishing to be engaged in ICANN and outside of the constituency structure are not consumers but:
> 
> "producers of content, directly related to their Domain" ...with a subsequent "highly personal interest in a NAME, an identifier of themselves or their on-line business".
> 
> In other words such individuals are typically unincorporated businesses (profit or not for profit), sharing a lot of common interest with the business constituency or non-comms, but are today unable to join the BC or non-coms because they choose to trade as individuals rather than be incorporated as SMEs or organisations ?
> 
> If yes this perspective, and therefore the way we incorporate these stakeholders, is important. What helps is to differentiate the interests of individuals as providers from individuals as users. 
> 
> Philip
> 
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 16:25:15 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

On Fri, 17 May 2002, at 06:23 [=GMT-0700], technizmo wrote:

> --- Philip Sheppard <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > In the non-ICANN world the voice of
> > consumers in policy development is typically heard
> > via consumer organisations.
>
> ...and this is a good thing?  Those consumer
> organizations normally form as the sole recourse
> against abuses from the industry's providers, in the
> absence of proper representation in the process.

Right. And for the domain name industry such a consumer organization is
...? And this organization (once we've found(ed) it) can use which courts
to remedy abuses?

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 07:37:52 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 08:09:48AM -0400, James Love wrote:
> If a subscription to a GA list (discuss or announce) *or* membership in an
> official DNSO constituency,  is a requirement for the voter registry, the
> voter registry page should probably explain this to people who want to vote.

That would only serve people who had no experience in ICANN at all,
which would only play to ballot stuffers.  In fact, it would be better
to add a significant time requirement.  In most elections you have to
register some period of time *before* you vote.  Given the complexity of
the issues, the GA should require at least 6 months membership on the
lists before you could vote. 

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jefsey" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 5:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS
> 
> 
> : On 19:13 16/05/02, James Love said:
> : >What do you intend to do about people who register to vote in the GA, and
> : >are "real", unique persons, who are interested in global DNS policy, and
> : >follow the GA discussions on via the archives, as many do?  What would be
> : >the logic of excluding them as GA voting members?  Jamie
> :
> : exclude them if they do not swear allegiance to the Emperor.
> :
> : As Elisabeth reminded you, to be on ga-annouce is enough. The need for a
> : specific voter registration is only a patch due to the use of two non
> : compatible software (majordomo and the voting system). Making an
> : constitutional requirement out of it is inept. But this is one of the ways
> : the Internet was built. Some now say it is cultural and wil contineu
> making
> : a prerequisite of it for ever. Some still want to ride their horse on the
> : highways....
> : jfc
> :
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 
> 
> :
> : ---
> : 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
> :
> 
> 
> --
> 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

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
Technical Support Manager, ICANN            lonesome."
[email-masked],[email-masked]                    -- Mark Twain

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 17:17:00 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

On Fri, 17 May 2002, at 07:37 [=GMT-0700], Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 08:09:48AM -0400, James Love wrote:
> > If a subscription to a GA list (discuss or announce) *or* membership in an
> > official DNSO constituency,  is a requirement for the voter registry, the
> > voter registry page should probably explain this to people who want to vote.
>
> That would only serve people who had no experience in ICANN at all,
> which would only play to ballot stuffers.  In fact, it would be better
> to add a significant time requirement.  In most elections you have to
> register some period of time *before* you vote.  Given the complexity of
> the issues, the GA should require at least 6 months membership on the
> lists before you could vote.

I agree wholeheartedly with Kent. In fact I agree even more, if that is
possible. Could we make it 3 years? No, let's define stakeholders that are
merely domain name holders as people who hold a domain registered prior to
the year 1999.

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 09:15:29 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 02:41:03AM -0700, Gary Osbourne wrote:
[...]
> 
> If that wasn't the case, why was I, and I
> know I'm not the only one in this situation,
> allowed to register?

Perhaps because the issue hadn't come up before.  Announcements to
slashdot make the possibility of ballot stuffing by large numbers of
of uninformed voters look a whole lot more serious. 

> Why not just take those
> considered members of those three groups and
> combine them to form the voting roll, if those
> are the only ones allowed to vote?

There are addresses subscribed to the lists for other purposes than
voting (archiving, press, etc). 

[...]

> I took this to mean that while some members might
> also be GA list subscribers, or participants in
> Constituencies, or Working Group, when it came to
> the voting roll, all were equal. Otherwise, why
> include that phrase?
> 
> In my own case, as I travel extensively, sometimes
> sans connection, I didn't find constant subscription
> to the GA list as manageable.

Many people travel extensively, and handle it.  And the number of 
messages to the announce list is in fact rather small.

[...]

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
Technical Support Manager, ICANN            lonesome."
[email-masked],[email-masked]                    -- Mark Twain

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 09:33:43 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

Philip, I think the view expressed below is mistaken. Let me explain why.

First and foremost, the interests of individual registrants are not merely
"indirectly" impacted by ICANN policies. They are directly impacted. From
the UDRP to the transfer policy to the deletion grace period to the waiting
list service, practically every issue under discussion in the DNSO
*directly* impacts a domain name registrant's use of his or her domain name.

Second, I would go farther, much farther, than to say that the collective
interests of individual domain name registrants are "valid." Taken in the
aggregate, no stakeholder is more important than the end users of the
resources under ICANN's management. If an ICANN policy benefits registries
and registrars, but is detrimental to registrants and other end-users, then
ICANN has failed. Note well that the converse is not true.

We've had difficulty finding a voice for individual registrants because of
the concern that the registrants who choose to participate in ICANN are not
sufficiently "representative" of the millions of registrants/end-users
around the world. This should be of no greater concern than whether the B&C
"represents" the world's business users or, indeed, whether even a fairly
homogeneous group like ICANN-accredited registrars are "represented" by that
subset of registrars that choose to participate in ICANN's registrar
constituency. The better question is whether the opinions expressed by those
who choose to participate in ICANN are sufficiently characteristic of the
concerns of the larger community such that ICANN and its constituent bodies
are making informed choices. I don't believe that small, relative sample
sizes necessarily preclude ICANN from making informed choices.

Third, as to the view that registrants will be best represented
federation-style by consumer-interest organizations, that's not a
requirement we place on any other group within ICANN. In the B&C, you
represent an association, but Marilyn and I represent individual companies.
You'll see that the same is true in the ISPC, IPC and NCDNHC.

Any reform model that doesn't allow individual domain name registrants to be
heard *and represented* on an equal basis with businesses, intellectual
property owners, ISPs, registries and registrars is not viable in the long
term. 

   -- Bret 

Philip Sheppard wrote:
> Individual registrants - like all consumers -  may be indirectly impacted by
> ICANN policies. Is each individual a true stakeholder in the same sense ? I do
> not know but their collective interests are clearly valid.  In the non-ICANN
> world the voice of consumers in policy development is typically heard via
> consumer organisations. Such organisations exist at national and regional (eg
> EU) level. This is the format of involvement of registrants as consumers that
> the NC envisages in recommendation 19. 

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 11:43:33 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

Phillip and all assembly members,

Philip Sheppard wrote:

>    Jamie Love raises a key question about defining stakeholders.
> And Jonathan Weinberg has provided a good insight into the divisive
> nature of individual involvement.
>
> Let me propose a few starting points.
>
> 1. "Stakeholders in ICANN policy development" means those directly
> impacted by ICANN policies.

  Yes, and this means anyone and everyone that is a user of any class
of the internet...

>
> 2. Stakeholders in the Internet per se are a different group.

  NO.  See response to your #1.  The MoU and White Paper points
that out clearly.  "All stakeholders or interested parties"

>
> 3. The impact of ICANN policy on e.g. Verisign, is of a different
> order to the impact of ICANN policy on my non-PC owning Aunt Agatha.

  No, not necessarily.  Verisign is a provider of a service.  That
service
impacts your Aunt Agatha in one form or another.  As such your Aunt
Agatha is really a higher order of impact as it relates to her or whom
she may interact with using the internet.  Hence in direct effect your
Aunt Agatha is at least on a equal level as Verisign.

>
>
> Conclusion:
> - there need to be different levels of involvement in ICANN policy
> development.

  No.  There is only one level of involvement according to the White
Paper
and the MoU.  I have briefly, and many before me, outlined what that
is.

>
>
> If you accept the above conclusion, lets review 1) by reference to the
> existing DNSO constituencies:
> gTLD registries, ccTLD registries, registrars, ISPs - ICANN policies
> impact on their business contracts. They are stakeholders.

  And registrants as well as users are directly impacted as to the
compliance
and use of these contracts as these contracts are on a public resource
on
a global scale.  Hence the impact to the Stakeholder/user or any other
class of stakeholder is greater in that sense at least.

>
> Business, Intellectual property interests, non-commercial organisation
> users - ICANN policies impact on the confidence of themselves and
> their customers/members to use the internet for e-commerce or
> non-commercial purpose (UDRP, Who Is, domain name availability,
> security, stability). They are stakeholders.

  As are users of those facilities that may be directly or indirectly
related
to the UDRP, Whois, Domain name( ISP users for instance ), availability
( Again ISP stakeholder/users or even web space/page users ), Security
( Again Web space/page users, ISP Users ), Stability ( Of course
all stakeholders/users are impacted directly here ).

>
>
> Individual registrants - like all consumers -  may be indirectly
> impacted by ICANN policies. Is each individual a true stakeholder in
> the same sense ?

  Yes.

> I do not know but their collective interests are clearly valid.  In
> the non-ICANN world the voice of consumers in policy development is
> typically heard via consumer organisations.

  Not true entirely.  Policy development in many countries such as the
US and most of the EU and Asia can and is done directly by those
that are interested parties or the individuals themselves.

> Such organisations exist at national and regional (eg EU) level. This
> is the format of involvement of registrants as consumers that the NC
> envisages in recommendation 19.

  And this "Recommendation 19" is fine as far as it goes.  However it
does not
go far enough.  As such it is invalid as it applies to individual
stakeholders
as it tends to clump them into categories that they may not wish to be
clumped into, or do not fit into.

>
>
> The rest of the world including my Aunt Agatha who choose not to seek
> involvement in one of these intermediary groups of stakeholders,
> should be offered the opportunity of consultation.

  More than that.  Your Aunt Agatha should if she so chooses, be able
to have both a voice and a VOTE in any ICANN policy or issue
being considered for a policy decision.

  Now you have again shown Phillip, and I am not blaming it strictly on
you,
that the "NC BS" Thread is well justified as the conclusions here that
you
have stated are predominantly invalid, or pure BS....  This is also why
many are upset with ICANN in general and why the Rebid motion
was put forward...

>
>
> Philip

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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: Fri, 17 May 2002 12:44:10 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

Marc Schneiders wrote:

>
>I agree wholeheartedly with Kent. In fact I agree even more, if that is
>possible. Could we make it 3 years? No, let's define stakeholders that are
>merely domain name holders as people who hold a domain registered prior to
>the year 1999.
>

This is OK for myself and others like me who registered domain names 
prior to 1999 (hermesnetwork.com registration was created: 1998-06-05 ), 
but what about the millions of valid registrants after 1999?  I don't 
think it behooves any of us to seriously consider such a definition.  As 
for Kent's suggestion of a six-month GA membership condition for voting 
tatus, I don't think it's such a good idea either.  There are plenty of 
reasons why someone would not want to / could not remain subscribed to 
the GA in perpetuity (change of address, overwhelming sense of disgust 
with ICANN and the NC, etc.). I recognized a few of the names in the 
purported "New Registrations" in the GA Voting Registry, and I'm sure 
others did as well.  In short, I do not think there is currently any 
sort of hoi polloi capture issue in the GA Voting Registry.  If anything 
there is quite probably an IPC and BC block of registered GA voters who 
make up the bulk of the eligible voters on the entire list already, 
which might explain many things with respect to past GA votes and their 
outcomes..  

Cheaters are quite often the biggest complainers _against_ cheating.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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 #1202
*************************