Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1218
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, May 23 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1218

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 03:24:23 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Byfield comments

- --=======5C9670FD=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-605F1DCD; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

At 01:16 23/05/02, Joe Sims wrote:
>How convenient it must be to be able to sit on the sidelines and carp at 
>the people trying to do the work, and then refuse to offer alternatives 
>because they might not be accepted.  It's the ICANN version of "its my 
>ball, so we will either do it my way  or I'll take my ball and go home." 
>And yet you still seem to sincerely wonder why you have little influence? 
>Self-delusion is a powerful force.

Let me be fair. I enough said that Joe thought data were traveling faster 
on yellow pad flies than in datagrams, and that he was worth a terrorist as 
far as the nets were concerned, to acknowledge his gallant move to come in 
the GA and debate. Let me try to respond in a positive way his courteous 
effort and to be a nice guest. I will accept he is true when he says he 
asks for ideas. Why would he be here otherwise. Actually we should be honored.

Joe,
you are involved in the ICANN stuff for years and I fully understand that 
you see it from inside. Now, let you try to see from outside, as the users, 
the Govs, the press, as us we see it. To help you I will ask you the two 
questions I asked to many and that several - and not the least ones - have 
responded ... in most of the cases privately, but then quite frankly. I do 
not ask you to respond publicly. Just to think of it. And then I will ask 
you a third question, one just because it is you, the only known permanent 
"Member" of the ICANN (no offense intended, but you know it and influence 
it so much...).

Q1. what has - in your opinion - the ICANN positively brought to the 
Internet? If you can list something(s), start from it and you should be 
able to get some good objectives.

Q2. what would really happen to the Internet - in your opinion - if the 
ICANN contract was not renewed? This should help you to determine what is 
not necessary in the ICANN.

IMHO you want too much structure everything. Just get real and start from 
that. Obviously this is a suggestion by an adversary, but I think you would 
be better off... Unless you read French (I made an interesting study - at 
least they say - on the best French and European interests vs ICANN).

The third question is more personal. You have spend a few years of your 
life quite involved in the ICANN. This is your baby. This made you to share 
in a lot of things and - IMHO - to be responsible of real mistakes (but I 
accept that I do not know enough details and you never came and explain 
clearly and simply what you think, so I may be totally wrong). Most 
probably it made you to share or to be proud of real achievements or hopes. 
Now, would you die 5 minutes from now, what would you be proud of as far as 
the ICANN is concerned? If there is one single thing, don't mind what 
people say, me  included, full speed ahead and build on it! But if there is 
nothing, just close the shop and find a better customer: that one is not 
going to survive very long.

Cordially. jfc

- --=======5C9670FD=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-605F1DCD
Content-Disposition: inline

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/02

- --=======5C9670FD=======--

- --
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 21:51:58 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The  Real World

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C201FC.6C64A894
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear all
=20

As is well known, I am one of the representatives of the business =
constituency,  I also work=20
within a company who is a major stakeholder in the Internet, wearing the =
hat of an ISP,=20
a business user, a web hoster, a famous ;' and well known brand holder, =
and acting as an=20
intermediary for several thousand businesses who have build web sites on =
the Internet.
=20
This post is as an individual:  BUT, I am the rapporteur in the BC on =
this issue and I believe that=20
business users are fully committed to the Evolution and Reform Process =
which ICANN announced.
=20
Did we agree with all the initial solutions proposed?    No.
Did we agree with the list of issues to be addressed.Yes, largely.
Are we willing and committed to evolution?  YES.
Are we committed to ICANN's success? YES.
=20
It is easy to throw stones. Better, harder, and more important to work =
to be part of a=20
process to ensure private sector  leadership in the issues and =
responsibilities ICANN manages.
=20
I believe that you could say that the business users have taken sides as =
well. That is the side of=20
evolving, improving and stabilizing ICANN.
=20
Recently,  a multi lateral organization has raised its hand and said =
something like: what about me?
I can do it better.Or cheaper. Or more like governments like it...  I =
have seen many postings from
industry sectors who object to any efforts by governments or multi =
lateral organizations to encroach
into the Internet via attempting to assume some of ICANN's functions.
=20
Industry says, no. Thank you, but no. We will continue to evolve ICANN =
and=20
welcome the support of governments [or multilateral organizations/treaty =
organizations]=20
to private sector leadership.  We urge governments to work to support =
ICANN; to participate
in GAC. To lend support to ICANN's activities. NOT to compete, and not =
to seek to=20
take on functions which belong to ICANN.=20
=20
On Evolution and Reform:=20
=20
Will this be easy? No
Will it continue to be a bit noisy? Yes.
It is perfect? No....=20
Will everyone be satisfied?Not likely.
Is it worth it? Yes
=20
Regards,=20
=20
Marilyn Cade
Posting as an individual business constituency member and elected =
representative, on my own personal views

- -----Original Message-----
From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 8:15 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] The Real World

The following should be of more than passing interest:

"The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN) was set up in 1998 to oversee several important=20
functions that keep the Internet running. Ever since, it has been
 criticized for lack of accountability and openness.  In February,
 its current President, M Stuart Lynn, issued a manifesto=20
claiming that ICANN was seriously broken and proposing a=20
complete reform.  Although many concede that ICANN has=20
failed, few agree with Lynn's specific proposals, which=20
essentially call for a rebuilt organization with three to five=20
times the budget, more than 50 percent additional staff=20
and greater power.  Critics argue that this plan will create=20
a single point of failure, the very thing the Internet's design=20
sought to avoid.

The upshot has been to reopen the intense debates that=20
preceded ICANN's formation. Even former pacifists,
including Peter G. Neumann, who moderates the online=20
bulletin board RISKS Forum, and Lauren Weinstein of=20
People for Internet Responsibility, are taking sides.  They=20
say that an immediate handover to a less political, more=20
strictly technical organization, such as the Internet=20
Architecture Board, is necessary to avoid a meltdown."

"Need to Know: ICANN CAN'T," Scientific American,=20
June 2002, p. 21.

Bill Lovell

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C201FC.6C64A894
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=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">

<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4727.700" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D831072601-23052002>Dear=20
all</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV><SPAN=20
class=3D831072601-23052002>
<DIV><BR><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D831072601-23052002>As is well known, I am </SPAN>one of the=20
representatives of the business constituency,&nbsp;<SPAN=20
class=3D831072601-23052002> I also =
work&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D831072601-23052002></SPAN><SPAN =
class=3D831072601-23052002>within a company=20
who is </SPAN>a major stakeholder in the =
</FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Internet, wearing=20
the hat of an ISP, </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>a=20
business user, a web hoster, a famous ;' and well </FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>known brand=20
holder, and acting as an </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>inter</FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>mediary for several thousand businesses who =
have build web=20
sites on the Internet.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>This=20
post is as an individual:&nbsp; BUT,&nbsp;I am the rapporteur in=20
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>the BC on this issue and I believe that </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>business users </FONT></SPAN><SPAN =
class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>are&nbsp;fully committed =
to</FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2> =
the Evolution=20
and Reform Process which ICANN announced.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Did we=20
agree with all the initial solutions proposed?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
No.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Did we=20
agree with the list of issues to be addressed.Yes, =
largely.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Are we=20
willing and committed to evolution?&nbsp; YES.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Are we=20
committed to ICANN's success? YES.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>It is=20
easy to throw stones. Better, harder, and more important to work to be =
part of a=20
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>process to </FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>ensure private sector&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>&nbsp;leadership=20
in the issues and responsibilities ICANN manages.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>I=20
believe that you could say that the business users have taken sides as =
well.=20
That is the side of </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>evolving, improving and stabilizing ICANN.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>Recently,&nbsp; a multi lateral organization has raised its =
hand and said=20
something like: what about me?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>I can=20
do it better.Or </FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>cheaper. Or more like governments like =
it...&nbsp; I have=20
seen many postings from</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>industry sectors who object to any efforts by governments or =
multi=20
lateral organizations to encroach</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>into=20
the Internet via attempting </FONT></SPAN><SPAN =
class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>to assume some of ICANN's=20
functions.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>Industry says, no. Thank you, but no. We will continue to =
evolve ICANN=20
and </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>welcome the support of governments [or multi</FONT></SPAN><SPAN =

class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>lateral=20
organizations/treaty organizations] </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>to=20
</FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>private sector leadership.&nbsp; We urge governments to work to =
support=20
ICANN; to participate</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>in=20
GAC. To lend support </FONT></SPAN><SPAN =
class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>to ICANN's activities. NOT to =
compete, and not=20
to seek to </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>take=20
on functions which belong to ICANN. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>On=20
Evolution and Reform: </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Will=20
this be easy? No</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Will=20
it continue to be a bit noisy? Yes.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>It is=20
perfect? No.... </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Will=20
everyone be satisfied?Not likely.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Is it=20
worth it? Yes</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>Regards, </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>Marilyn Cade</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D831072601-23052002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>Posting as an individual business constituency member and =
elected=20
representative, on my own personal views</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
  size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> William S. Lovell=20
  [mailto:[email-masked]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, May 22, 2002 =
8:15=20
  PM<BR><B>To:</B> [email-masked]<BR><B>Subject:</B> [ga] The Real=20
  World<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>The following should be of more than passing =

  interest:<BR><BR>"The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and=20
  Numbers<BR>(ICANN) was set up in 1998 to oversee several important=20
  <BR>functions that keep the Internet running. Ever since, it has=20
  been<BR>&nbsp;criticized for lack of accountability and openness. =
&nbsp;In=20
  February,<BR>&nbsp;its current President, M Stuart Lynn, issued a =
manifesto=20
  <BR>claiming that ICANN was seriously broken and proposing a =
<BR>complete=20
  reform. &nbsp;Although many concede that ICANN has <BR>failed, few =
agree with=20
  Lynn's specific proposals, which <BR>essentially call for a rebuilt=20
  organization with three to five <BR>times the budget, more than 50 =
percent=20
  additional staff <BR>and greater power. &nbsp;Critics argue that this =
plan=20
  will create <BR>a single point of failure, the very thing the =
Internet's=20
  design <BR>sought to avoid.<BR><BR>The upshot has been to reopen the =
intense=20
  debates that <BR>preceded ICANN's formation. Even former=20
  pacifists,<BR>including Peter G. Neumann, who moderates the online=20
  <BR>bulletin board RISKS Forum, and Lauren Weinstein of <BR>People for =

  Internet Responsibility, are taking sides. &nbsp;They <BR>say that an=20
  immediate handover to a less political, more <BR>strictly technical=20
  organization, such as the Internet <BR>Architecture Board, is =
necessary to=20
  avoid a meltdown."<BR><BR>"Need to Know: ICANN =
CAN'T,"&nbsp;<I>Scientific=20
  American</I>, <BR>June 2002, p. 21.<BR><BR>Bill=20
Lovell<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C201FC.6C64A894--
- --
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 19:04:24 -0700
From: "Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] deletion policy - what should it look like?

Hello All:

Yes  the definitions need to be clear and in place:

Registrar Accredition Agreement currently states in regards to Deletion
of SLD

J.
5. Registrar shall register SLDs to SLD holders only for fixed periods.
At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on behalf of
the SLD holder to pay a renewal fee within the time specified in a
second notice or reminder shall, in the absence of extenuating
circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration. In the event
that ICANN adopts a policy concerning procedures for handling expiration
of registrations, Registrar shall abide by that policy.

This can simply be amended to spedify time periods and actions.

. Registrar shall register SLDs to SLD holders only for fixed periods.
At the conclusion of the registration period ((___ defined by the
___time period prepaid by the SLD holder??___ and published in whois
record by the Registrar____))), failure by or on behalf of the SLD
holder to pay a renewal fee within the time specified in a second notice
or reminder shall ____ ((( but not exceeding 35 or 45 or 65 days past
the conclusion of the registration period___ ))), in the absence of
extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration
___((( no later than 45 or 65 or 85 days past the conclusion of
previously prepaid registration period and issuing Delete command to
Registry___))).

Cheers
Genie Livingstone

> perhaps we could begin by defining exactly what is meant by 'delete'?
>
> * delete from the registry?
> * delete from the registrar?
> * be unable to renew the domain anymore even tho something might still
> be temporarily 'live'?
>
>
>
> Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >
> > One of the things which have come out of the TF calls is that there
> > have been quite a few people calling for a uniform domain name
> > deletion policy (which I hereby baptise UDNDP).  What should this
> > policy look like?
> >
> > Options:
> >
> >  - Delete precisely N days after the date of expiry, at HH:00 UTC.
> >  - Delete between M and N days after date of expiry.  (N - M = 7)
> >  - others?
> >
> > Comments welcome.  While I don't believe that a deletion WG could
> > actually get a full consensus policy done until Bucharest (as Danny
> > suggested), producing a suggestion may still be worth the effort.
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> Dan Steinberg
>
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec fax:   (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>

- --
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 22:13:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The  Real World

Quick Translation: "We've been getting more or less what we want from
ICANN. We sure would hate to lose that golden goose."

On Wed, 22 May 2002, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Dear all
>  
> 
> As is well known, I am one of the representatives of the business constituency,  I also work 
> within a company who is a major stakeholder in the Internet, wearing the hat of an ISP, 
> a business user, a web hoster, a famous ;' and well known brand holder, and acting as an 
> intermediary for several thousand businesses who have build web sites on the Internet.
>  
> This post is as an individual:  BUT, I am the rapporteur in the BC on this issue and I believe that 
> business users are fully committed to the Evolution and Reform Process which ICANN announced.
>  
> Did we agree with all the initial solutions proposed?    No.
> Did we agree with the list of issues to be addressed.Yes, largely.
> Are we willing and committed to evolution?  YES.
> Are we committed to ICANN's success? YES.
>  
> It is easy to throw stones. Better, harder, and more important to work to be part of a 
> process to ensure private sector  leadership in the issues and responsibilities ICANN manages.
>  
> I believe that you could say that the business users have taken sides as well. That is the side of 
> evolving, improving and stabilizing ICANN.
>  
> Recently,  a multi lateral organization has raised its hand and said something like: what about me?
> I can do it better.Or cheaper. Or more like governments like it...  I have seen many postings from
> industry sectors who object to any efforts by governments or multi lateral organizations to encroach
> into the Internet via attempting to assume some of ICANN's functions.
>  
> Industry says, no. Thank you, but no. We will continue to evolve ICANN and 
> welcome the support of governments [or multilateral organizations/treaty organizations] 
> to private sector leadership.  We urge governments to work to support ICANN; to participate
> in GAC. To lend support to ICANN's activities. NOT to compete, and not to seek to 
> take on functions which belong to ICANN. 
>  
> On Evolution and Reform: 
>  
> Will this be easy? No
> Will it continue to be a bit noisy? Yes.
> It is perfect? No.... 
> Will everyone be satisfied?Not likely.
> Is it worth it? Yes
>  
> Regards, 
>  
> Marilyn Cade
> Posting as an individual business constituency member and elected representative, on my own personal views
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 8:15 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] The Real World
> 
> 
> The following should be of more than passing interest:
> 
> "The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> (ICANN) was set up in 1998 to oversee several important 
> functions that keep the Internet running. Ever since, it has been
>  criticized for lack of accountability and openness.  In February,
>  its current President, M Stuart Lynn, issued a manifesto 
> claiming that ICANN was seriously broken and proposing a 
> complete reform.  Although many concede that ICANN has 
> failed, few agree with Lynn's specific proposals, which 
> essentially call for a rebuilt organization with three to five 
> times the budget, more than 50 percent additional staff 
> and greater power.  Critics argue that this plan will create 
> a single point of failure, the very thing the Internet's design 
> sought to avoid.
> 
> The upshot has been to reopen the intense debates that 
> preceded ICANN's formation. Even former pacifists,
> including Peter G. Neumann, who moderates the online 
> bulletin board RISKS Forum, and Lauren Weinstein of 
> People for Internet Responsibility, are taking sides.  They 
> say that an immediate handover to a less political, more 
> strictly technical organization, such as the Internet 
> Architecture Board, is necessary to avoid a meltdown."
> 
> "Need to Know: ICANN CAN'T," Scientific American, 
> June 2002, p. 21.
> 
> Bill Lovell
> 
> 
> 

- -- 
		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: Wed, 22 May 2002 19:35:45 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World

Wednesday, May 22, 2002, 7:13:22 PM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> Quick Translation: "We've been getting more or less what we want from
> ICANN. We sure would hate to lose that golden goose."

That was quite constructive of you, Michael.

Do you have anything substantive to contribute, or just more sniping
from the sidelines?

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 04:46:10 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The  Real World

On Wed, 22 May 2002, at 21:51 [=GMT-0400], Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Industry says, no. Thank you, but no. We will continue to evolve ICANN and
> welcome the support of governments [or multilateral organizations/treaty organizations]
> to private sector leadership.  We urge governments to work to support ICANN; to participate
> in GAC. To lend support to ICANN's activities. NOT to compete, and not to seek to
> take on functions which belong to ICANN.

ICANN manages a cartel of registries and registrars. The market cannot
decide therefore. Voting with $$ is impossible. Well, not absolutely
impossible. An alternative root is possible, naturally. But it is very
hard, and hardly what the industry would like.

The industry should therefore recognize that it cannot ignore its
customers, despite the fact that it has a monopoly.

On a more principal level: The Internet is different from other networks,
like cable television. It is not merely about suppliers and consumers. It
is also that, but at the same time it functions like the telephone
network, where the users make the content, not companies. Email is the
killer application. Despite all spam mainly a user to user tool.

So put users into your picture. Give them votes like you have votes. Like
it was meant to be, half of the votes on the Board of ICANN.

- --
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 20:08:38 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Roessler Comments on Mission Paper

Why would Denise not have accepted the volunteering of a couple of GA
members to work with her?

Why would Joe Sims rather than Stuart Lynn be here writing regarding
reform?

Why would the authors of ICANN current policy, not be here to explain
it?

Why does the NC not make its minutes and agenda available a reasonable
time ahead of meetings?

POLITICS AS USUAL

Sincerely,
Eric
- --
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 23:11:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World

You know where to find my academic work.  Where's yours?

On Wed, 22 May 2002, William X Walsh wrote:

> Wednesday, May 22, 2002, 7:13:22 PM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> 
> > Quick Translation: "We've been getting more or less what we want from
> > ICANN. We sure would hate to lose that golden goose."
> 
> That was quite constructive of you, Michael.
> 
> Do you have anything substantive to contribute, or just more sniping
> from the sidelines?
> 
> 

- -- 
		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: Wed, 22 May 2002 23:15:00 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The  Real World

Marc,

I won't debate the number of seats for users or who users are, given the present ICANN evolution and Reform. I make one comment, you seem to think that business, institutional, non commercial users don't count... but only individual users..

I think that we should all reexamine how to ensure broad, stable participation and representation, and that is why I've personally supported the At Large recommendations.

You must be joking if you equate the registrars and registries with the business users. Don't mistake us. WE are users.

If you want better enforcement by ICANN OF THE CONTRACTS, that is interesting and important, and I suspect you will find support.... but not clear from your post WHAT  you want. I'm interesting in learning your concerns, but let me note for others who may decide to respond as well,  that I have both ICANN related and day job work to do, and will read coherent, and organized posts, not rants.

As far as alternate roots are concerned, one should think about history. In this country very long ago, and in Europe and Mexico, not so long ago, different telephone companies served distinct user groups. IF one wanted to reach someone on a "different root", one contacted the operator, who "connected" the roots... meaning disparate  groups of users.

Is that a future consistent with the goals of the international Internet community? I doubt that.

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 10:46 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] The Real World

On Wed, 22 May 2002, at 21:51 [=GMT-0400], Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Industry says, no. Thank you, but no. We will continue to evolve ICANN and
> welcome the support of governments [or multilateral organizations/treaty organizations]
> to private sector leadership.  We urge governments to work to support ICANN; to participate
> in GAC. To lend support to ICANN's activities. NOT to compete, and not to seek to
> take on functions which belong to ICANN.

ICANN manages a cartel of registries and registrars. The market cannot
decide therefore. Voting with $$ is impossible. Well, not absolutely
impossible. An alternative root is possible, naturally. But it is very
hard, and hardly what the industry would like.

The industry should therefore recognize that it cannot ignore its
customers, despite the fact that it has a monopoly.

On a more principal level: The Internet is different from other networks,
like cable television. It is not merely about suppliers and consumers. It
is also that, but at the same time it functions like the telephone
network, where the users make the content, not companies. Email is the
killer application. Despite all spam mainly a user to user tool.

So put users into your picture. Give them votes like you have votes. Like
it was meant to be, half of the votes on the Board of ICANN.

- --
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 20:50:16 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World "email is the killer"

Most of the world translates IT into Information Technology.  To my knowledge 95% of all
ecommerce is conducted in one portion or another through email.  I believe that if we include
chat rooms and message boards and similar mechanism we find about 70% of Internet use now is in
an email form; interpersonal communications.  Interactive.

So what does the DNSO of the ICANN have to do with that?  Email goes to an address, which like a
street address is made up of names and numbers, as far as most users know.

Why would such a large portion of the use be ignored by ICANN? Or just as importantly by a
company whose stock is falling like a dead bird out of a tree.

Eric

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Wed, 22 May 2002, at 21:51 [=GMT-0400], Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
> > Industry says, no. Thank you, but no. We will continue to evolve ICANN and
> > welcome the support of governments [or multilateral organizations/treaty organizations]
> > to private sector leadership.  We urge governments to work to support ICANN; to participate
> > in GAC. To lend support to ICANN's activities. NOT to compete, and not to seek to
> > take on functions which belong to ICANN.
>
> ICANN manages a cartel of registries and registrars. The market cannot
> decide therefore. Voting with $$ is impossible. Well, not absolutely
> impossible. An alternative root is possible, naturally. But it is very
> hard, and hardly what the industry would like.
>
> The industry should therefore recognize that it cannot ignore its
> customers, despite the fact that it has a monopoly.
>
> On a more principal level: The Internet is different from other networks,
> like cable television. It is not merely about suppliers and consumers. It
> is also that, but at the same time it functions like the telephone
> network, where the users make the content, not companies. Email is the
> killer application. Despite all spam mainly a user to user tool.
>
> So put users into your picture. Give them votes like you have votes. Like
> it was meant to be, half of the votes on the Board of ICANN.
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 22 May 2002 23:56:34 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The  Real World "email is the killer"

I'm a little confused... 95% of ecommerce via email... hmmm, well, we can explore that, but ecoommerce - b- b has always dwarfed B-C, but we all want/believgetht B-C and C-C will, someday be a significant player. 

Perhaps Eric is focused on consumer only,which might explain the percentages he quotes.  
What are the b-b stats?

MC
- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 11:50 PM
To: Marc Schneiders
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World "email is the killer"

Most of the world translates IT into Information Technology.  To my knowledge 95% of all
ecommerce is conducted in one portion or another through email.  I believe that if we include
chat rooms and message boards and similar mechanism we find about 70% of Internet use now is in
an email form; interpersonal communications.  Interactive.

So what does the DNSO of the ICANN have to do with that?  Email goes to an address, which like a
street address is made up of names and numbers, as far as most users know.

Why would such a large portion of the use be ignored by ICANN? Or just as importantly by a
company whose stock is falling like a dead bird out of a tree.

Eric

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Wed, 22 May 2002, at 21:51 [=GMT-0400], Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
> > Industry says, no. Thank you, but no. We will continue to evolve ICANN and
> > welcome the support of governments [or multilateral organizations/treaty organizations]
> > to private sector leadership.  We urge governments to work to support ICANN; to participate
> > in GAC. To lend support to ICANN's activities. NOT to compete, and not to seek to
> > take on functions which belong to ICANN.
>
> ICANN manages a cartel of registries and registrars. The market cannot
> decide therefore. Voting with $$ is impossible. Well, not absolutely
> impossible. An alternative root is possible, naturally. But it is very
> hard, and hardly what the industry would like.
>
> The industry should therefore recognize that it cannot ignore its
> customers, despite the fact that it has a monopoly.
>
> On a more principal level: The Internet is different from other networks,
> like cable television. It is not merely about suppliers and consumers. It
> is also that, but at the same time it functions like the telephone
> network, where the users make the content, not companies. Email is the
> killer application. Despite all spam mainly a user to user tool.
>
> So put users into your picture. Give them votes like you have votes. Like
> it was meant to be, half of the votes on the Board of ICANN.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1218
*************************