Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1213
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, May 22 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1213

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 22:38:23 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Linda S. Wilson comments on ICANN Structure

Presumably this is our director, Linda S. Wilson, that has posted comments on 
ICANN reform at 
http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/structure/msg00006.html

The comments make for very interesting reading.  Enjoy.
- --
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, 21 May 2002 22:22:50 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [WLS Conference Call]

George,

I thought you did a good, and upstanding, job at explaining the
problems with WLS.  The two most disturbing are effectively
anti-consumer and anti-competition.

Those folks with nothing to gain, see the whole picture, including the
downside.  You are, obviously, one of them.

Personally, I support your view 100%.  WLS should have been a
non-issued long ago.

Thanks,

Tuesday, May 21, 2002, 3:59:43 PM, Loren Stocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
LS> Hi George,

LS> Great question today!!!! 

LS> There is no answer. It's like asking a drunk, "what would it take to quit
LS> drinking?"

LS> Best, Loren
LS> The Most Evil One!
LS> www.EVIL.biz

LS> George Kirikos <[email-masked]> wrote:
LS> Hi folks,

LS> It was nice to hear some of you today at the WLS conference call. My
LS> own statement is at:

LS> http://www.loffs.com/wls/

LS> for anyone who might have missed the call (I gave the URL
LS> www.intangibles.com during the call, but will take it down from there
LS> in a few days), although I deviated from my statement a few times.
LS> Transcripts were taken, so everyone can read those when they are ready.

LS> In summary, Verisign saw absolutely *no* support from participants of
LS> the call, and some extremely strong opposition. I was particularly
LS> pleased to see that Dotster (who runs NameWinner) intends to take legal
LS> action, in the unlikely scenario that WLS is approved, to block it. I
LS> applaud them, and would support their effort. Nice to hear from Paul
LS> Stahura, Thomas, the two Dans, Rick Wesson, Loren, Jeff, Danny,
LS> Marilyn, and others too. :)

LS> Near the end of the call, I asked Chuck Gomes the simple question
LS> "Under what conditions would Verisign pull the proposal from the table,
LS> given the huge opposition to it." He had no answer. Maybe Verisign
LS> never imagines a scenario where they can't get their way. I look
LS> forward to tomorrow's call, to see if he has an answer then.

LS> My prediction is that given the overwhelming opposition displayed ICANN
LS> will decide to invoke the formal consensus process for this proposal.
LS> Hopefully other related issues, such as a Uniform Deletions Policy, and
LS> better WHOIS information, will be addressed at that time. Assuming
LS> Verisign doesn't sue ICANN, I figure that consensus process would take
LS> 3 to 6 months, and not come out in favour of WLS in any event.

LS> Sincerely,

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

LS> __________________________________________________
LS> Do You Yahoo!?
LS> LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
LS> http://launch.yahoo.com

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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, 21 May 2002 21:09:55 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [WLS Conference Call]

I completely support Dons' statement here.

Eric

Don Brown wrote:

> George,
>
> I thought you did a good, and upstanding, job at explaining the
> problems with WLS.  The two most disturbing are effectively
> anti-consumer and anti-competition.
>
> Those folks with nothing to gain, see the whole picture, including the
> downside.  You are, obviously, one of them.
>
> Personally, I support your view 100%.  WLS should have been a
> non-issued long ago.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tuesday, May 21, 2002, 3:59:43 PM, Loren Stocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> LS> Hi George,
>
> LS> Great question today!!!!
>
> LS> There is no answer. It's like asking a drunk, "what would it take to quit
> LS> drinking?"
>
> LS> Best, Loren
> LS> The Most Evil One!
> LS> www.EVIL.biz
>
> LS> George Kirikos <[email-masked]> wrote:
> LS> Hi folks,
>
> LS> It was nice to hear some of you today at the WLS conference call. My
> LS> own statement is at:
>
> LS> http://www.loffs.com/wls/
>
> LS> for anyone who might have missed the call (I gave the URL
> LS> www.intangibles.com during the call, but will take it down from there
> LS> in a few days), although I deviated from my statement a few times.
> LS> Transcripts were taken, so everyone can read those when they are ready.
>
> LS> In summary, Verisign saw absolutely *no* support from participants of
> LS> the call, and some extremely strong opposition. I was particularly
> LS> pleased to see that Dotster (who runs NameWinner) intends to take legal
> LS> action, in the unlikely scenario that WLS is approved, to block it. I
> LS> applaud them, and would support their effort. Nice to hear from Paul
> LS> Stahura, Thomas, the two Dans, Rick Wesson, Loren, Jeff, Danny,
> LS> Marilyn, and others too. :)
>
> LS> Near the end of the call, I asked Chuck Gomes the simple question
> LS> "Under what conditions would Verisign pull the proposal from the table,
> LS> given the huge opposition to it." He had no answer. Maybe Verisign
> LS> never imagines a scenario where they can't get their way. I look
> LS> forward to tomorrow's call, to see if he has an answer then.
>
> LS> My prediction is that given the overwhelming opposition displayed ICANN
> LS> will decide to invoke the formal consensus process for this proposal.
> LS> Hopefully other related issues, such as a Uniform Deletions Policy, and
> LS> better WHOIS information, will be addressed at that time. Assuming
> LS> Verisign doesn't sue ICANN, I figure that consensus process would take
> LS> 3 to 6 months, and not come out in favour of WLS in any event.
>
> LS> Sincerely,
>
> LS> George Kirikos
> LS> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> LS> __________________________________________________
> LS> Do You Yahoo!?
> LS> LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
> LS> http://launch.yahoo.com
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> [email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
>
> --
> 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, 21 May 2002 22:45:48 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: WLS call follow-up

At 04:36 PM 21/05/02 -0400, Dan Steinberg wrote:

>Basically the way I see things is that the WLS
>proposal is essentially IP neutral. I fail to
>see how it helps anyone with respect to IP unless
>you insert some tribunal or UDRP or other 'judge'
>in the process when selecting someone to be in the
>queue for a particular domain.

So I register qwertyadsfjsdfjsf.com (it's just an example,
and still unregistered through some fluke of fate, and/or
oversight of the speculators). I put a couple of years of
work into it, submitting it to search engines, getting my
online buddies to link to it, printing it on my business
card, putting it in the yellow pages, and just for good
measure I put the answer to everything on there (which is
43 as it happens, but let's keep that between us for now),
yet it isn't my intellectual property, right?

>I think that there are enough issues with WLS as is
>without introducing irrelevancies and things we are
>not qualified to deal with.

Perhaps you could list the necessary qualifications
before I take the trouble to post again. I'm travelling
and am on a slow motion pay by the hour dailup and must
couch my words accordingly.

>I both reject Chuck's argument that its better for the
>IP constituency as well as the argument that a domain
>holder could lose out or feel compelled because of IP
>issues.

I can't speak for those other weasels, but if someone
snatches qwertyadsfjsdfjsf.com out from under me, I'll
just have to register (so to speak):
www.geocities.com/qwertyadsfjsdfjsf/
and I'll be so pissed at this loss of face I'll sue:
1. my original registrar for screwing up
2. ICANN, for their policies, or lack of same
3. anyone else I can find an address for
Hey, lookie here: [email-masked]
and in my bailiwick too.

>Were it true that WLS helps IP holders,
>snapnames would already have had everyone
>in existence as a client.

Sorry, I don't get out much. How does one
existential entity find this snapnames? Is it:
http://www.snapnames.cc/
my TLD of choice? Apparently not. Is it at
RealName "snapnames"? Nope, that feeds me
popunder ads, but only till the end of June,
then who knows? Erm, what was the question?

>The simple solution to concerns about losing
>your intellectual property, which were always
>around before WLS (which only makes it easier
>for someone to grab it *once* you have lost it)
>
>...is....to....
>...remember to renew! This is not rocket science.

Oh sorry, I registered it using an ISP addy that folded,
or I registered it using a web-based email client that
died, so I never got the notification. So, I'll sue
them too, but seeing as they aren't around any more,
perhaps *you* still have some money. Ka-chingggg!

I didn't know that this concept was around before
the WLS, that one lost trademark protection (even
north of the border) because of a choice of email
providers. Will...wonders...never...cease?

>And...as a fall back...to use a hypothetical example,
>should Dan Steinberg use WLS to get att.com when
>someone at ATT falls asleep...ATT (as they always did)
>has recourse under UDRP, lanham act, etc. If the
>hypothetical "Allied Telesyn Technologies" grabs that
>name...using WLS or any other existing means...
>then...too bad for the people who forgot to re-register.

I didn't forget. I had a contract with an ICANN
accredited registrar, and they screwed up. Hence my
proclivity, if not propensity, for suing all and sundry.
And BTW, where exactly in Canadian legislation does one
find this lanham act thingie?

>I do not see this as an issue in the context of WLS.
>Any risks that exist already existed before WLS. WLS
>is merely a way to find out in advance who would get
>it, no more.  It just gets someone potential preferential
>treatment in the event of a deletion, nothing more i.e.
>if ATT makes a mistake...it just decides who gets *lucky*,
>and does nothing to enhance the possibility of ATT making
>a mistake in the first place.

It does, however, enhance the possibility of Ver$ign
making a mistake as, if I renew my name with my
existing registrar it costs somewhat less than $35
(actually considerably less than $35), but hey, I'm
just the registrant, that forgotten factor in the
ICANN (and apparently the GA rep's) equation. Whereas
if I am someone attempting to leech off someone else's
work (one might even call it one's intellectual property
if one could get a definition of that term), I am only
too happy to pay that $35 because Veri$ign's dog ate
someone else's homework. So the leech, who could just
as easily use:
1qwertyadsfjsdfjsf.com
or
qwertyadsfjsdfjs.com
as
qwertyadsfjsdfjsf.com
except for *my* intellectual property (awaiting definition)
and Veri$ign, for screwing up my re-registration
and ICANN, via its tithe
and you, if you're into brownie points
get lucky, and I, even if I have the answer to everything,
lose my connection to others who have seen me in a search
engine, or read my business card, or yellow page listing...
and, don't tell me, you wonder why the internet bubble
burst, right?

>pure and simple I think it is as irrelevant to WLS
>as today's weather in idaho.

Well, I've got my own private Idaho here, I am known
in trade as qwertyadsfjsdfjsf.com and now you are
sullying my good name by putting up a protozoa pr0n
site at that pointer due to Veri$ign not understanding
the specification for https. Okay, I'll sue you all.

>I was disturbed by people making all sorts of claims
>that this is an IP issue when it isnt, especially
>people who obviously are not experts on intellectual
>property at all.

Like me, apparently. Here I thought it was the property
of my intellect. Now I learn it is a protection racket
run by some offshoot of the USG and its apparently endless
army of lackeys. So I'll sue everyone involved, but seeing
as you're the only one within reach...

>Does this help?

Absolutely. I didn't much care for those IP numbers.
When Paul Mockapetris brought in intuitive domain
names it made internet navigation much easier. When
dropsquatters made the DHS couter-intuitive I became
somewhat confused. I can again sleep well at night
knowing that you have ruled it, on balance, as a
Very Good Thing (TM) for Veri$ign and ICANN. -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: Wed, 22 May 2002 01:15:22 -0500
From: "Hugh Blair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: WLS call follow-up

> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of Gary Osbourne
>
> and just for good
> measure I put the answer to everything on there (which is
> 43 as it happens, but let's keep that between us for now),

Sorry, you don't get a towel. The answer is 42.

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 11:36:03 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Congress Whois hearing today

U.S. House of Representatives 
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property

Oversight hearing on the accuracy and integrity 
of the Whois Database

Starting 10:00 EDT (= 7:00 L.A., 14:00 UTC, 16:00 Paris, 23:00 Tokyo)
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=22&month=5&year=2002&hour=10&min=0&sec=0&p1=263

Streaming audio at the time of the hearing: 
http://judaudio5.house.gov/2141b (Windows Media ASF file)

Unfortunately, the link to the current witness list from
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/courts.htm is broken,
but according to Bret's Blog, it will remain largely
as planned: Howard Beales, FTC; Steven Metalitz,
Copyright Coalition on Domain Names; Michael Palage,	
registrars; Cameron Powell, Snapnames.

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 11:18:46 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: CENTR on ICANN reform

Dear all,

Jim Fleming alerted me to the fact that CENTR has posted 
"ccTLD Requirements for International Coordination of the 
Domain Name System (A response to the Lynn Proposal for ICANN Reform)",
by CENTRs General Manager Marianne Wolfsgruber:
http://www.centr.org/news/ICANN-response.html

Quote from the conclusions:
>The current operation of the IANA function by ICANN does not guarantee 
>stable and secure management of the ccTLD registry functions, therefore 
>we propose to return to the proven system that empowers the local 
>communities, national law and service to the local internet communities.

Unfortunately, the structure diagram in attachment 1
is located in the closed section of the CENTR site, so
I'm not sure whether it differs from her previous
presentation called "ICANN 2 and the ccTLD Community"
http://www.centr.org/docs/presentations/ICANN-reform.pdf

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 10:31:48 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
>Interesting information. So if the outcome of the election had been
>different, the w-dogs might have yapped?
>

I remember another case, the selection of a DNSO-elected ICANN Director.
A large number of brand new people expressed statements of support to a 
candidate. Of course the matter was investigated, but dropped as soon as 
endorsement from 10 valid individuals was found.
Should this not have been the case, you bet that the matter would have been 
investigated further.

I don't know what you mean exactly by "if the outcome of the election had 
been different". If you mean "if the result of the vote would have been 
altered by inclusion/exclusion of the doubtful ballots", the answer is "yes, 
the ballots would have been investigated further".
On the other hand, if the few questionable ballots do not influence the 
result, there is little motivation to do the extra work: the case is only 
useful to check whether the voting rules can be improved to 
diminuish/eliminate grey areas for the future.

Best 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: Wed, 22 May 2002 12:48:59 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: CENTR on ICANN reform

Alexander Svennson wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Jim Fleming alerted me to the fact that CENTR has posted 
> "ccTLD Requirements for International Coordination of the 
> Domain Name System (A response to the Lynn Proposal for ICANN Reform)",
> by CENTRs General Manager Marianne Wolfsgruber:
> http://www.centr.org/news/ICANN-response.html
> 
> Quote from the conclusions:
> >The current operation of the IANA function by ICANN does not guarantee 
> >stable and secure management of the ccTLD registry functions, therefore 
> >we propose to return to the proven system that empowers the local 
> >communities, national law and service to the local internet communities.
> 
> Unfortunately, the structure diagram in attachment 1
> is located in the closed section of the CENTR site, so
> I'm not sure whether it differs from her previous
> presentation called "ICANN 2 and the ccTLD Community"
> http://www.centr.org/docs/presentations/ICANN-reform.pdf

The attachement 1 is composed of 3 pages/schemes from
"ICANN 2 and the ccTLD Community" (dated 18 April 2002)
http://www.centr.org/docs/presentations/ICANN-reform.pdf
title, p12, p11, p9, and the end=p14

Kind regards,
Elisabeth Porteneuve
- --
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, 22 May 2002 10:51:50 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

Jefsey,

>... 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.

Let me disagree.
The concept of a voting registry, separate from announce, GA-list, or 
whatever else, is simply addressing the need of having a unique, official, 
voters list, independent of any other participation/subscription, and has 
nothing to do with supposed incompatibilities of software.
I find the principle not only useful, but applied in other similar 
circumstances. For instance, in the US every US citizen has the right to 
vote. They could extract the voting population from existing files, but 
instead they have a special registry where you have to register to vote.

Incidentally, this system allows individuals to temporarily unsubscribe from 
mailing lists, while still stay registered to vote. Maybe we should make 
sure that this is what we want. For instance, does an individual who has 
acquired GA membership via subscription to the GA list keep his/her 
membership status once she/he unsubscribes from the list? This has to be 
seen in parallel with the suggested requirement of "being active/informed". 
Maybe after this vote is over we should have a look into the matter.

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.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: Wed, 22 May 2002 12:50:54 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Conference Call

On 2002-05-21 16:24:22 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

>If only that were true.  Sadly, what will pass for the "consensus 
>process" will transpire within a few days.  

Nonsense.

The transfer task force is, at this point, at the very first steps  
of its comprehensive review of deleted domain name issues, with a  
focus on WLS.  If you want to put it like that, what we have been  
participating in yesterday is a "problem-finding" mission:  
Identifying the problems, and identifying possible solutions.  (With 
an emphasis on _possible_.)

Despite the possibly unfortunate wording in the terms of reference  
(for which I may have to take some blame), what emanates from this  
is certainly not a policy recommendation, or even a consensus  
policy.  (The latter is already impossible by definition.)

Rather, what we'll hopefully end up with after this week is a  
somewhat clearer understanding of the implications of the WLS  
proposal, and of the side-effects it would have on competition  
between registrars, on intellectual property (think about the UDRP  
clause in the revised proposal - that part is not a red herring!), 
on other existing businesses, and whatever else people will come up 
with.  We'll, I hope, also have a clearer understanding of what 
policy-making should be undertaken next in order to mitigate some of 
the (of course unintended - after all, WLS is supposed to foster 
competition according to its proponent!) ill side-effects.

That policy-making would then have to be handled by whatever body is 
appropriate; currently, that's of course the DNSO.  

Examples include (1) the interaction with the UDRP which may or may  
not have been handled sufficiently in the proposal, (2) the  
interaction with a uniform deletion policy.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:09:37 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS call follow-up

At 21.05.2002 21:34, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>1. Chuck: In the presentation you made to the task force and all  
>those attending the call, you talked about registrars with a total  
>market share of 57.5% supporting the proposal.  I already mentioned  
>during the call that, after substracting Verisign's own market share 
>of about 40%, we end up at a mere 17.5% of market share; this is  
>comparable to the market share you mention as being opposed to WLS. 
>I believe that it was Rick Wesson who asked how much of that  
>remaining market share in favor of WLS actually belongs to  
>registrars owned by or affiliated with Verisign.  Could you please  
>provide some clarification of this on the GA list?  Thank you.

This is the presentation:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/ppt00002.ppt

Let's see -- the original claim was 18 registrars supporting WLS
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02170.html),
but it seems that 2 have retracted their signatures
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02177.html).

Jim Archer writes in that posting that he has been told that
VeriSign owned five of the signing registrars. It's easy to
confirm each of these cases with Google's help.

 VeriSign Registrar, Herndon, VA, USA

 NameEngine, New York, NY, USA
 (http://www.nameengine.com/about/press/ceo_verisign.html)

 NameSecure, Moravia, CA, USA
 (http://www.icann.org/melbourne/verisign-submission-29mar01.htm)

 SRSPlus, Los Angeles, California, USA
 (http://www.srsplus.com/en-def-82b225ecaf3f/en/srsplus/about_srsplus.shtml)

 Registrars.com, Los Angeles, California USA
 (http://www.registrars.com/)

Furthermore, DomainSite.com (another signatory) is listed as
one of SnapName's "strategic partners".
(http://www.snapnames.com/partners_strategic.html)
NameScout is one of SnapNames' registrar partners
(http://www.snapnames.com/namescoutterms.html).

Who is left?
  SiteName, Rishon Lezion, Israel
  (seems identical with Galcomm.com, Rishon Lezion, Israel)
  BulkRegister.com, Baltimore, MD, USA
  ChinaDNS, Beijing, China
  DirectNic, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
  DomainMonger.com, Washington State, USA       
  Go Daddy, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
  Namebay, Monaco
  NameSystem, Bridgetown, Barbados
  Neteka, Toronto, Canada
  Register.it, Bergamo, Italy

So what is the percentage of registrations represented by these
registrars not affiliated with VeriSign or SnapNames AND 
supporting the WLS?

Using data from https://www.sotd.info/sotd/Content/Documents/sotdQ102.pdf
(which ironically is published by SnapNames...) I arrive at 
the following com/net/org market shares:

  ???? % SiteName
  0.00 % Galcomm.com
  5.39 % BulkRegister.com
  ???? % ChinaDNS (only listed for .biz)
  1.73 % DirectNic
  ???? % DomainMonger.com
  2.61 % Go Daddy
  0.09 % Namebay
  0.00 % NameSystem
  0.00 % Neteka/Namesbeyond
  ???? % Register.it

It doubt that this adds up to more than 10 percent; please
correct me if I'm wrong.

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 11:16:51 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

Philip Sheppard wrote:

>
>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.
>

Agree, so far.

>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.
>

Here we start disagreeing.
There is no doubt that individual registrants are stakeholders, by any 
analysis of the situation. They are not only impacted by ICANN's policies 
(UDRP, WLS, sunrise, and what else), but also by ICANN's contracts (with 
Verisign, for instance), by the common practices (WhoIs, for instance), not 
to mention that at the end of the day, they are financing this whole shabang 
with the money they pay for their registrations, that only transitates 
through registrars and registries to get into ICANN's bank account.
Philip, you are a distinguished member of the Business Constituency. Let's 
talk business. Have you ever seen a business case with a stakeholder 
analysis that was not including "customers" as stakeholders? I did not.
The fact that the Name Council of the DNSO still does not include an 
essential part of the stakeholders, namely the Individual DN Holders, cannot 
be taken now, adding insult to injury, as an excuse to withdraw them from 
the list of 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.
>

You are right, about the non-ICANN world.
But the non-ICANN world does not claim to decide on policy by consensus of 
the stakeholders.
The CEO of any firm does not make this claim. Otherwise, he/she should 
decide what to do and how to do it with the workers, customers, suppliers, 
and other stakeholders.
The telcos *never* claimed that their policies (see tariffs, for instance) 
were developed with the consensus of the stakeholders. That's why you only 
have consumer organizations attempting to defend customers, but not direct 
customer involvment in the decisions. Incidentally, consumer organizations 
are not consulted either, but that's another debate.
In summary, either ICANN governs by consensus of the stakeholders, and in 
this case Individual Registrants have the right to be heard, including the 
one of being one of the DNSO Constituencies, or ICANN governs by consensus 
of a subset of stakeholders, and in this case the Bylaws should be amended.

>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.
>

Indeed.
My regards to your Aunt Agatha, who I see has recently replaced the 
legendary protagonist of the early days ICANN: Amadeu's Grandmother. ;>)
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.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: Wed, 22 May 2002 11:33:46 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC BS

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

>
>My point is that participatory criteria can, and are, determined by the
>membership of the distinct groups within ICANN - an effort that, to the 
>best
>of my knowledge, has never been undertaken by the GA.
>

This was not by accident, but by design. In other words, "it's not a bug, 
it's a feature", as Bill Gates says.
The fact is that the model upon which the GA has been built is the IETF. 
Nobody asks you formal IETF membership for joining a working group, a 
mailing list, or a physical meeting. And this should have been the GA: a 
forum where people could debate DNS-related issues, the only requirement 
being that they were interested in the debate, tautologically shown by their 
very participation.
The problem comes when a forum for discussion is turned into a 
decision-making body: at that point you need a more formal approach, an 
"official" membership, controls against multiple voting, and all amenities 
that have been subtracting time and attention from other subjects.

Personally, I believe that the GA should limit its voting to few 
housekeeping issues, like election of representatives and adoption of basic 
rules, and offer its resources for the exchange of ideas.
If we don't do this, we end up in being neither thing: not a forum for 
substantial issues, because participants are tired to death with procedural 
issues and grandstanding proclaims, and not a decision-making body, because 
we don't have any official power.
I know that this post will provoke the bolscevist to reply that power is 
something you grab, not something that will be handed over to you, but I'll 
take the risk.

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.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: Wed, 22 May 2002 08:12:53 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [WLS Conference Call]

Folks, 
I greatly appreciate your participation in Tuesday's call regarding the WLS.

In reading through the discussion from yesterday, the chair notes the following:
Very useful contributions were made, but it is difficult to find the "gems" in them.
The Task Force needs to focus in on specific areas of concern in order to fulfill its tasks.

Some suggestions which might further assist include comments which specifically address:

1) interests which are harmed [please try to be specific about the category of user or provider and how 
they are harmed
2) changes suggested in existing proposal to "fix it" related to the "harm" you identify... 
3) what isn't/who's interests aren't heard yet... related to 'harm',etc.
[registrants would seem to fit in here/your comments welcome on this area and other?]
4) IMPORTANT AREA:  issues related to deletion of names 

- -[one participant mentioned that there 
were repeated requests for technical fixes that have not been responded to, etc.]
- -I heard several related issues:
	A)"add storms": are there technical solutions to this issue?
	B)Are there technical issues requested by registrars which haven't been addressed? 
- -other issues related to deleted names, such as impact on registrants or other entities	
5)Solutions for those issues in 4 above:
- -Thomas and at least one other participant suggested some key changes needed : uniform deletion policies
- -)Redemption, plus uniform/standard deletion policy may serve some users needs?
- -Issues related to "hoarding" and how to address this... Others indicated some agreement. More input is needed on 
these areas.
- -Other suggestions?

6)Other points mentioned:Concerns were raised about 
- -harm to existing providers of competitive services
- -conflicts related to preferential treatment status of SnapNames
- -advantages to larger registrars with new service
- -registrant issues, but not fully explored. If you have
comments on this area, that would be helpful. If you can be specific about the kind
of harm, that would be even more useful.

Your participation and input is appreciated by the Task Force.

We will prepare a status report on this review which will be presented to the Names Council at its next meeting. Several have noted that time is very short for a comprehensive review of issues and possible solutions that is requested and that there is no mechanism identified to take broad input from a wide group of registrants. 

Regards, Marilyn Cade

- -
- --
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, 22 May 2002 14:13:24 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Reform committee comments

- --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline

I just sent the attached comments to the E&R committee; I'm looking  
forward for your comments.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

- --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:45:12 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: ICANN core values
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i

Let me make a few comments on the "mission and core value" paper  
which I found, quite frankly, a bit disappointing: I believe that at 
least those core values which talk about ICANN's "benefit" give in 
to the temptation of saying something soft and useless where a hard 
statement would make dissent in the community visible.  I had hoped 
that I would find the time to produce something more elaborate than 
this, but since it doesn't look like I'll be able to find the time 
for that, let me just go through a few points which I found  
particularly concerning.

Core value (b), for instance, talks about "limiting ICANN's  
activities to those matters within ICANN's mission requiring or  
significantly benefiting from global coordination." That doesn't  
make much sense: _Matters_ hardly benefit from global coordination - 
market players do.  Trying to add any flesh to this "core value"  
immediately leads to vastly different conclusions about what ICANN  
should or should not be - this "core vlaue" covers about everything  
 from the gTLDs' cooperative ICANN idea, to a strong regulator with 
government-like powers.  I could imagine that adding some more meat 
to this recommendation would have helped to provoke clearer input 
 from readers.

Core value (f) has a similar problem, where it talks about  
introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain  
names where practicable and benficial.  Once again, beneficial to  
whom?  To existing registrars?  To existing registries?  To trade  
mark holders and their lobby?  To the public?  I have to admit that  
the consideration of an unspecified "benefit" in conjunction with  
competition and its limitations is something which makes me  
extremely nervous, in particular when I see some rather powerful and 
active players which could benefit quite a bit (at least short-term) 
 from _less_ competition, which would, however, most likely not be  
in the interest of the public, of consumers, and of possible future  
competitors.

Core values (h) and (j) seem to contradict each other: (h) talks  
about "open and transparent policy-making," while (j) seems to, in  
effect, restrict it to input "from those most affected." That  
particular wording was suggested by the gTLDs during a names council 
telephone conference in the context of a policy-making  
recommendation, and I can easily imagine how they'd interpret it:  
Namely, as meaning that "those most affected" are _always_ the ones  
immediately bound by any policy (registrars, registries), as opposed 
to, for instance, registrants which would only be bound indirectly.  
In other words, recommendation (j) is a blanco cheque for dismissing 
input from affected parties by claiming that they are not "most  
affected."

Core value (l) is also interesting when it talks about "sensitivity  
to governmental concerns for the public interest so that the need  
for direct governmental action is minimized."

I think I can offer two conflicting interpretations of this which 
give reason for opposite kinds of concerns.

On the one hand, the sentence may be read as trying to reduce  
ICANN's responsibility towards the public interest - if you want a  
caricature of this, it's "just do as much as necessary in order to  
keep governments out, and otherwise do what Verisign wants."

On the other hand, the word "minimized" could give reason to the  
opposite interpretation: ICANN as a "world government" which wants  
to take over as many competences as possible from existing  
governments, without paying any attention to whether or not  
something would better (for whatever definition of "better" is  
appropriate) be done by local governments.

I believe that ICANN's core values should not be that vague, but  
should instead try to provide ICANN itself and the community with a  
clear guidance concerning the benficaries of ICANN's work - that is, 
with clear guidance on what to expect from ICANN, and what not to  
expect.  In particular, I could imagine that it would be extremely  
helpful if these core values could be consulted for guidance on  
whose benefit should have the highest priority in ICANN's  
operations.  Core value (a) gives some such guidance, but I believe  
that this guidance is far too limited.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        <[email-masked]>

- --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:11:38 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Some Remarks on ICANN Structure and Mission.
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i

- --cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline

Please find attached some thoughts I (mostly) wrote down several 
weeks ago, but did not publish so far.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        <[email-masked]>

- --cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="why-icann-cant-work.html"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<html>
<head>
   	     =20
  <meta http-equiv=3D"CONTENT-TYPE"
 content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-15">
  <title></title>
         	 	     =20
  <meta name=3D"GENERATOR" content=3D"StarOffice/5.2 (Linux)">
   	     =20
  <meta name=3D"AUTHOR" content=3D"Thomas Roessler">
   	     =20
  <meta name=3D"CREATED" content=3D"20020424;19140600">
   	     =20
  <meta name=3D"CHANGEDBY" content=3D"Thomas Roessler">
   	     =20
  <meta name=3D"CHANGED" content=3D"20020512;20253400">
   	     =20
  <style>
	<!--
		@page { margin-left: 1.25in; margin-right: 1.25in; margin-top: 1in; margi=
n-bottom: 1in }
		P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; font-family: "Times"; font-size: 10pt; font-we=
ight: medium; line-height: 150% }
		TD P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; font-family: "Times"; font-size: 10pt; font=
- -weight: medium; line-height: 150% }
	-->
	</style>
</head>
  <body>
    =20
<div type=3D"HEADER"> 	 =20
<table width=3D"100%" border=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" cellspacing=3D"0">
   		<col width=3D"128*"> 		<col width=3D"128*"> 		<tbody>
      <tr valign=3D"top">
   			<td width=3D"50%"> 				             =20
      <p><font size=3D"1"
 style=3D"font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Thomas Roessler 				&l=
t;</font><a
 href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]"
 style=3D"font-family: times new roman,times,serif;"><font size=3D"1">roess=
[email-masked]</font></a><font
 size=3D"1"><font face=3D"Helvetica"><span
 style=3D"font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">&gt;</span> 				</font=
></font>
 				</p>
   			</td>
   			<td width=3D"50%" style=3D"font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">
				             =20
      <p align=3D"right"><font size=3D"1"><sdfield type=3D"DATETIME"
 sdnum=3D"6153;1033;M/D/YY">2002-05-22</sdfield></font></p>
   			</td>
   		</tr>
   	     =20
  </tbody> =20
</table>
   	 =20
<p style=3D"margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 100%;"><br>
   	</p>
   </div>
    =20
<p align=3D"center"
 style=3D"font-family: helvetica,arial,sans-serif; font-weight: bold;"><font
 size=3D"6">Some Remarks on  </font> </p>
    =20
<p align=3D"center"><font face=3D"Helvetica"><font size=3D"6"
 style=3D"font-weight: bold;"><span
 style=3D"font-family: helvetica,arial,sans-serif;">ICANN Mission and Struc=
ture</span></font><b><font
 size=3D"6"><br>
 <br>
 </font></b></font></p>
    =20
<table cellpadding=3D"2" cellspacing=3D"2" border=3D"0"
 style=3D"text-align: left; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"
 width=3D"60%">
   <tbody>
     <tr>
       <td valign=3D"top">      =20
      <p align=3D"center"><br>
  <small><small><span style=3D"font-style: italic;">The present document is
a write-up of some thinking I did in late April and early May, before the
E&amp;R Committee published any of =A0its discussion papers, but after the
Names Council conference call during which it became painfully obvious that
the DNSO's constituencies=A0 do not agree on some fundamental principles of
ICANN structure.</span></small></small></p>
      <p align=3D"center"><small><small><span style=3D"font-style: italic;">
Starting with the assumptions in section 1, I ask what conclusions follow
for ICANN strcuture, and for public participation  in policy-making?<br>
If you feel provoked by this, that's fine. =A0I'm looking forward to answers
and comments.</span></small></small><br>
  </p>
       <br>
       </td>
     </tr>
  =20
  </tbody>=20
</table>
=20
<p align=3D"center"><br>
 </p>
=20
<p align=3D"center"> <br>
   </p>
    =20
<p><b>1.</b><span style=3D""> The remarks in the present document are mainly
 aimed at ICANN's mission and structure with respect to gTLD domain name
policy.  Some fundamental observations which will be used throughout the
argument:   (1) Registries and registrars (who are the ones in direct contr=
actual
relationships  with ICANN) are commercial entities; their behavior is motiv=
ated
by economic  gain.  In fact, some of the players can not even be expected
to behave ethically,  or to respect any rules when breaking them seems econ=
omically
attractive.   (2) Economical considerations have to take into account costs
which can be generated by the legal environment  (legislation, lawsuits,
=2E..).  (3) Some groups of players are capable to change the legal environ=
ment,
or to  use it otherwise in order to generate cost.  The IP Constituency is
an example  of such a group. Some civil liberty groups may also be capable
of this, but  don't seem to use this capability.  (4) Other groups do not
currently have  these capabilities.</span></p>
    =20
<p align=3D"left" style=3D""><br>
  <br>
   </p>
    =20
<p align=3D"left"><b>2. </b><span style=3D"">Policy-making.  ICANN policy-m=
aking
 in the domain name area is (as far as "consensus policies" as defined by
the various contracts are concerned) inherently limited to those cases in
which abiding by policy - once established - is economically attractive for
registries and registrars. The most obvious situations of course cover tech=
nical
coordination, which can help to avoid unnecessary cost, and any other kind
of "win-win" situation.  It should be noted that self-regulatory efforts
of registrars and registries could be expected in these cases even without
establishing an entity like ICANN, since such efforts would be in the econo=
mical
interest of those directly bound by such policies.</span></p>
     =20
<p align=3D"left"><span style=3D"">A slightly less obvious situation occurs=
 when
 policy is pushed by a "type (3)" group which can make a credible threat
of  changing (or using) the legal environment in order to create costs.=20
One example of this kind of policy is the UDRP, where registries and regist=
rars
can reduce litigation risks and costs (and, possibly, risks of unpleasant
 legislation due to lobbying efforts of the IP community) by abiding by the
policy.</span>  "Type (3) policy" is the area where the risks of mission
creep are largest, since economical incentives for further policies can be
artificially created.  Since there is an economical incentive for registries
and registrars to follow the wishes of type (3) groups, other groups are
unlikely to have a chance to change the outcome of policy development.</p>
     =20
<p align=3D"left">As a corollary, explicit limits to ICANN policy-making are
 currently most urgently needed with respect to all kinds of Intellectual
Property aspects of the DNS, and similarly with respect to any other aspect
which attracts (or may attract) powerful advocacy organizations.</p>
     =20
<p align=3D"left"><i>Note: The risk with such limits is, of course, that po=
licy-making
 may happen in an uncontrolled environment when there is actually a win-win
 situation.  From this point of view, ICANN mission creep may, in fact, be
 the lesser of two evils. </i> </p>
     =20
<p align=3D"left"><i>Note 2: Taking this argument another step further, the
 above note is, of course, based on the assumption that using ICANN as a
policy-making  framework can actually change anything.  This is far from
obvious, in particular  with a "truly consensus-based" ICANN.</i></p>
    =20
<p align=3D"left"><br>
  <br>
   </p>
    =20
<p align=3D"left" style=3D""><b>3. </b>The role of the "public interest."  =
When
 ICANN community members talk about the "public interest," two different
things  may be meant.  (1) Groups may try to push various kinds of political
agendas  in ICANN policy-making, by trying to act as type (3) players [most
of these  activities don't seem to have been too successful; it seems that
the really  powerful players hardly showed up].  (2) Groups complaining abo=
ut
the activities  of existing type (3) players, which are not sufficiently
balanced.</p>
     =20
<p align=3D"left"><span style=3D"">The first case bears a considerable risk=
 of
 mission creep, and should be treated like any other type (3) player:  Igno=
re
 them as long as they aren't credible, and try to satisfy them to the extent
 necessary if they can credibly threaten to create additional costs to regi=
strars
 and registries.</span></p>
     =20
<p align=3D"left" style=3D"">The second case is, in a certain sense, at the=
 core
 of ICANN's mission:  Instead of leaving policy-making to registries, regis=
trars,
 and those who put political and economical pressure on them, ICANN's role
 should be to ensure that the policies which evolve do not violate users'
or the public's interests.</p>
     =20
<p align=3D"left" style=3D""> Of course, both kinds of public interest acti=
vities=20
can be exercised by the same groups.  Public interest groups which are stro=
ng=20
enough to balance other type (3) players would certainly make ICANN's missi=
on=20
of balancing interests easier.  However, it seems that these groups have not
been participating in actual policy-development.</p>
    =20
<p align=3D"left" style=3D""><br>
  <br>
   </p>
    =20
<p align=3D"left"><b>4.</b><span style=3D""> The role of an at-large member=
ship.
  From an economical point of view, an at-large membership (or other indivi=
dual
 users' representatives) can be safely ignored during policy-making, unless
 there are type (3) players supporting their activities.  It seems that,
to  some extent, certain governments are (or have been) this supporting pla=
yer.
  As a conclusion, an at-large membership and at-large  elections to the
board  will always depend on governments' (or strong advocacy groups') will=
ingness
 to put pressure onto the rest of the ICANN community, and to back at-large
 activities.  It seems plausible that such pressure may be exercised by gov=
ernments
 in favor of a certain model of board member selection.  It seems much less
 plausible that it would be used to back policy-making activities of an at-=
large
 membership on a policy-by-policy basis, unless governments or other strong
 advocacy groups are already directly involved with policy-making. One may=
=20
 argue that governments or other strong public interest advocates may back
 an at-large membership's role in policy-making in the most drastic cases
of abusive policy-making.  However, in these cases, an intervention would
most likely be inevitable even without an at-large membership.  As a conclu=
sion,
 an at-large membership is not suitable as a tool to represent the public
interest in policy-making: It could only achieve this goal when there are
other, strong public-interest representatives involved with the process.</s=
pan></p>
       =20
<p align=3D"left"><b><br>
<br>
 </b></p>
=20
<p align=3D"left"><b>5. </b><span style=3D"">The role of governments.  Obvi=
ously,
 governments (or, more precisely, nation states) are the ultimate type (3)
 player.  For the sake of argument, it seems reasonable to assume that their
 ultimate objective is to make sure that the interests of the public at lar=
ge
 are respected.  In the ICANN process, this means that there are various
roles  governments can play; these roles are not mutually exclusive:  (1)
Governments  could back various type (3) players to the extent necessary
in order to balance  these players.  With this approach, there would at lea=
st
be a possibility  to keep ICANN's mission bounded. (2) Governments could
get involved as  a  player themselves.  The GAC has demonstrated the latter
option in the case  of geographical names in .info. This kind of government=
al
involvement maximizes  the danger of mission creep.<br>
 </span></p>
=20
<p align=3D"left"><span style=3D""><br>
 <br>
 </span></p>
    =20
<p align=3D"left" style=3D"">	</p>
    =20
<p align=3D"left"><b>6.</b><span style=3D""> Extreme proposals.  The Lynn p=
roposal's
 idea to involve governments as directly as possible is attractive if ICANN
 is supposed to act as an effective regulator which can -- if necessary --
impose  policy on registries and registrars. An ICANN of this kind could
address public interest concerns such as privacy or consumer protection dir=
ectly,
 and may indeed lead to balanced policies.  However, it would also bear the
greatest risk of mission creep.</span></p>
       =20
<p align=3D"left"><span style=3D"">On the other end of the spectrum, the gT=
LD
 registry constituency's proposal that ICANN should be a cooperative effort
 of registries, registrars, and registrants, minimizes some of the risks
of  mission creep, but may lead to unbalanced policies in those areas where
existing  type (3) groups which can't be avoided are active (think about
the IP community,  if you like). Consumer protection and privacy concerns,
however, may have  to be addressed elsewhere.</span></p>
    =20
<p align=3D"left"><span style=3D""><i>Note: As stated in the note in section
2 above, it is not obvious that such a consensus-based ICANN would actually
 lead to any change when compared to a mostly unregulated market which is
solely governed by economical interests.</i></span></p>
    =20
<p align=3D"left"><br>
   </p>
    =20
<p align=3D"left"><b>7.</b><span style=3D""> Current structure.  The current
structure is a compromise between these somewhat extreme proposals. However,
it lacks a balance of powers between special interest groups.  This lack
is, to a certain extent, caused by a lack of involvement of existing consum=
er
rights and advocacy groups with policy development, and the ICANN process
in general.</span></p>
       =20
<p align=3D"left"><br>
  <br>
   <b>8.</b><span style=3D""> Conclusion.  Without the participation of <i>
powerful</i>  public-interest groups in ICANN process and policy-making,
any compromise between the  extreme proposals described above will fail.
 On the other hand, both of the extreme proposals would yield an effective
policy-making instance, for their inherent definition of "effective."<br>
 <br>
 </span></p>
    =20
<p align=3D"left" style=3D""><br>
  <br>
   </p>
    =20
</body>
</html>

- --cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e--

- --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl--
- --
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 #1213
*************************