Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1219
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, May 23 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1219

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 00:20:39 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

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

Yes, William, please do show us.  

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

"A tree can be judged by its fruit."

>
>
>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?
>>
>>
>

- --
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 00:42:31 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World

Marilyn writes:  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.

As I recall: 

1.  Marilyn supported cutting back the public interest component by reducing 
At-Large directors from the promised nine directors to five or less (her BC 
draft paper made the point that all other SOs have only 3 directors).  
2.  Marilyn has fought every effort to have individual domain name holders 
represented as a constituency.
3.  Marilyn has recommended that *only* current "stakeholders" should 
populate the General Assembly.
4.  Marilyn objects to the concept of open fully participatory Working Groups.
5.  The democratic concept of one-person/one-vote in the DNSO has not 
received Marilyn's support.

For some reason, I find myself being reminded of the very white, very elite 
country club owners that are are constantly "reexamining" how to best keep 
the rabble off of their property.  Their words are always genteel, and are 
always designed to make you believe that they support having a public course, 
but all they really want is to maintain their private club.

- --
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 23:41:56 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World - Part/round II

Marilyn and all assembly members,

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> 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..

  You missed Marc's point entirely Marilyn.  But that's also not all that
surprising.  You bet that business ( Especially small business ),
institutional and non commercial users count!  But individual users
count more because they are far and away the largest group.
And THAT was Marc's point as well as NAIS's, ours, and
a huge host of others with respect to the ALSC's flawed
and unrepresentative, Final report.

>
>
> 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.

  See my above and the ALSC's forum archives Marilyn.  They do not
support your view.

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

  Yes indeed.  But only a tiny portion of the stakeholder/user's...

>
>
> 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.

  Good point here.  And I agree.  BTW, this very comment sounds allot like
a rant Marilyn...  So perhaps practicing what you preach here would be
in order?  >:)  But back to what you say you want to read...

1.) The ICANN BoD and Staff MUST formulate and AT-Large
as per the White Paper and the MoU.  It is long past time to have
accomplished this.

2.) The ICANN BoD and especially the ICANN Staff MUST enforce
vigorously their own Registry and Registrar contracts without exception
or other consideration.  So far they not only have not done so but have
specifically refused publicly, to do so.

3.) Policy issue determination must be the business of any and all stakeholders
as per the MoU and the White Paper.  So far the ICANN BoD and in particular
the ICANN Staff have continually blocked any effort for this to be accomplished
and put into effect.

4.) The Board Squatters must resign immediately and without further due.
     Than hold open elections, open to any and all self defined
     stakeholders/users or other interested parties in accordance
     with the White Paper and the MoU, to fill these BoD seats as
     well as the full nine (9) that the ICANN BoD promised without delay...

5.) DNSO policy related issues must be determined by the participants
present and future that directly relate to them or the DNS indirectly.
Currently this is not being done either or is severally restricted to the
extent that only a "Chosen Few" have such determination...

6.) Transparency and openness - Any and all policy considerations
are the business of any and all stakeholders or interested parties as
put forth in the White Paper and the MoU.  So far, this too has been
perdiciously thwarted or blocked in one way or form or another
to the extent that routing around ICANN is becoming a more
standard practice.  That is bad for the internet, and bad for the
stakeholder/user, present and especially future...

  I could go on and on here Marilyn, but I think you get the gist...

>
>
> 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.

  And thankfully the Judge Green decision in 1980 affirmed that CHOICE in
a free market system is king.  So again there are many Long distance companies
that can serve many different groups of consumers/stakeholders/users and
companies like AT&T must share those networks to link through whether
they want to or not.  Yet we see that companies LIKE AT&T are desperately
trying to break into the local phone system market and not having all that
much success.  So instead companies like AT&T started buying out
Cable companies at huge multiples of annual revenues, only to find that
the wireless market was taking off at the same time and were left with
a shrinking cable market thereby drastically lowering the value of those
Cable Company buyouts, LIKE AT&T as done and loosing value.  As
a result companies LIKE AT&T's stock value starts slipping rapidly
and their Corp. Bond rating was dropped to "Junk" status (Recently
for AT&T) and now are looking to find a new revenue source in the
Internet game to make up at least some those losses....  My my how
the worm turns, eh Mairlyn?

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

  I don't.  And again, see above...  You folks including your CEO Michael,
still can't see the dam forest for the trees yet...

>
>
> 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.
>
>

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 21:55:51 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World "email is the killer"

Marilyn;

Please read before you misquote! I was addressing email as the means of verifying purchase.  Make damn sure you note that I did not say 95% of ecommerce via email.

Yes my percentages include b-b and most b-b is done by non domain name holders even though they may work for Goliath's like ATT.  These are the people actually using the Internet - not just profiting by it.

That is called a user.  When you design a keyboard do you care what ATT wants or what the millions of data entry people throughout the world want?

This type of spinning is exactly what they want to replace the newly opened seat on the ICON baud. It is quite obvious your application has been submitted and you would do well to jump ship before your stock does
another dive.

Sincerely,
Eric

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:

> 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

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 00:54:38 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World

Marilyn, what about the theory that standard setting is (a) a potentially
competitive field, and ICANN would benefit from a little more competition,
and (b) it is unusual for a standards organization to openly declare that it
is against being bound by consensus, and (c), and it is really unusual for a
body that wants to *govern* to openly declare it should have a self
selecting board?   How do you explain these things to your friends?
Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
To: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>; "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>;
"Names council (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>; "Business Constituency
Secretariat (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>; "Alejandro Pisanty
(E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:51 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] The Real World

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

- --
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 23:53:56 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Delete

This issue of delete must be more forcibly addressed.

If a name gets deleted because no one cares, that is ok
[email-masked].

But when there are earnest problems keeping a name from the delete
process and protecting it - IP or not, that is a major problem that
needs to be addressed.

This is both a Transfer issue and a WLS issue.  It is both a major
corporation issue (ip) and a dotcommoner issue.  it is an ISP issue and
a BC issue and a noncom issue.

I believe that there are about 3 or maybe 4 people on this list in favor
of the WLS.
MC
Mr. Gomes
Mr. Faussset
Joe Sims

I could be wrong here.

TR what would you like me to do to begin the process of a motion to
adopt a anti-WLS vote?

As your servant,
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: Thu, 23 May 2002 02:49:57 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN --- vs government?

Marilyn, as I read the ICANN reform documents (particularly the policy
making process document), and even Vint's the Internet is for Everyone
paper, which shares similar themes, ICANN isn't so much an alternative to
governments, but an aspiring government on its own.  It is of course a
government where most of us can't vote.  If you support the current
direction for the ICANN reform effort, it seems to me like support for a new
oligarchy, Internet Monarchy, new wave one party state, or whatever label
fits.    It certainly isn't "self government" for this "self," since I don't
even have the power to vote.    It really isn't an alternative to
government.  It is a particular way to run a government.

  Jamie

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 03:31:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Delete

On Wed, 22 May 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> But when there are earnest problems keeping a name from the delete
> process and protecting it - IP or not, that is a major problem that
> needs to be addressed.

let not forget another little issue.  lets say one wanted to retire a
domain.  well could on really do that?  so far retired domains end up as
porn redirect sites - or speculation - or whatever.  but what if someo is
malicous and decide to use a domain to gather information.

example - a company goes bankrupt.  and as a result they lose their
domain.  well someone can reactivate it and grap email communication -
which maybe of a private nature - subscriptions to lists etc.

a consideration ...

Cheers
Joe Baptista

- --
Planet Communications & Computing Facility
a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited

- --
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 09:57:41 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World

At 22.05.2002 17:15, William S. Lovell wrote:
>"Need to Know: ICANN CAN'T," Scientific American, 
>June 2002, p. 21.

Thanks for forwarding this!
The "ICANN CAN'T" box accompanies a longer article
about IDNS security risks. 
(http://www.sciam.com/2002/0602issue/0602scicit5.html)

Lauren Weinstein from PFIR says that a regulatory 
approach will be necessary to prohibit confusing names
(e.g. homograph names, like microsoft.com incorporating
Cyrillic "c" and "o") based on the UDRP. "But it will 
require proactive policing on the part of the registrars, 
such as VeriSign, something they have typically resisted."

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: Thu, 23 May 2002 12:39:57 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: IDN pose a security risk ? (was Re: [ga] The  Real World)

Thanks Alex for posting it.

The article title is:
    URLs in Urdu?
    INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAMES POSE A NEW SECURITY RISK 
    BY WENDY M. GROSSMAN

The author of article writes:
  On a technical level, homograph URLs are not confusing.
  International domain names depend on Unicode, a standard that
  provides numeric codes for every letter in all scripts worldwide.

As far as I understand, it is not true at least in CJK group 
(Chinese-Japanese-Korean), which is not alphabet based, 
and where Unified Han conflicts with versions of Chinese scripts.
The Unified Han and Unicode system are tied together,
the beginning of Unicode focus on printers, to answer printer's 
industry needs.

Today the CJK community is working together on Unicode usage for IDNs.

More in my briefing paper to the NC IDN TF at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-idn/Arc00/msg00063.html

We may add to Latin-Cyrillic confusion quoted in the article
that Unicode tables, designed initially for printers, have
also problems even within Latin area. For example the Slavic 
languages code points include characters with double consons, 
like "dz" "cz" .. etc, If you use the basic ASCII for 
say "dz", you will encode two letters as we see it. But there
is also another mean to have exactly the same "dz" printed the same
way, is exist in "Latin Extended B".
There is no means to distinguish the both in printing, therefore
in URL.
I was told by Slavic language linguist that double consons
have been added in Unicode few years ago to prevent the split
of words in inadequate place.

Elisabeth Porteneuve
- --

> Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 09:57:41 +0200
> To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World
> 
> 
> At 22.05.2002 17:15, William S. Lovell wrote:
> >"Need to Know: ICANN CAN'T," Scientific American, 
> >June 2002, p. 21.
> 
> Thanks for forwarding this!
> The "ICANN CAN'T" box accompanies a longer article
> about IDNS security risks. 
> (http://www.sciam.com/2002/0602issue/0602scicit5.html)
> 
> Lauren Weinstein from PFIR says that a regulatory 
> approach will be necessary to prohibit confusing names
> (e.g. homograph names, like microsoft.com incorporating
> Cyrillic "c" and "o") based on the UDRP. "But it will 
> require proactive policing on the part of the registrars, 
> such as VeriSign, something they have typically resisted."
> 
> 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: Thu, 23 May 2002 08:20:04 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] various comments

Let me try to collectively respond to the various posts dealing with my
previous posts.

1.  ICANN is a process, not a thing.  Its only purpose in life is to serve
as a facilitating mechanism for issues related to the DNS for which there
is no other available or preferable forum.  I understand that there are
people out there who don't like that idea, and wish it were not so, but
there are  also people out there that do like the concept, and so far, the
latter have been more influential than the former.

2.  ICANN's mission, simply put, is to provide a forum for discussion,
consensus building where possible, and decision-making on matters which are
either necessary or highly useful to the continued effective operation of
the DNS.  I understand that reasonable people can and do differ about the
parameters of that mission, and so it continues to be debated. Some people
think there is a broad consensus on this point, and others do not; in the
meantime, decisions will be made by those with the ability to make them,
exercising their best judgment as to the course of conduct that most
conforms with the first sentence of this paragraph.

3.  In response to Jefsey, the main accomplishment of ICANN  will always be
the continued stable operation of the DNS, for the benefit of all those
that rely on it.  If ICANN can provide the forum for discussion and debate,
and make decisions as felt necessary, with the result that (despite all the
forces to the contrary) the DNS continues to perform effectively, that will
validate its existence.  To date, this has been done while a competitive
registrar system and a SRS has been introduced; while seven new generic
TLDs have been introduced; while a global dispute resolution system has
been introduced where none existed before; and while there has been a
continuing forum (no matter how imperfect some feel it has accepted or
reflected their views) for debate and discussion about not only these
issues, but internationalized TLDs, the appropriate system of oversight for
ccTLDs, the proper role of the RIRs and root server operators in the global
coordination of the DNS and addressing system, and the appropriate
governance mechanisms for such a unique entity as ICANN.  In the future,
there will be more significant issues that raise their own policy problems
- -- perhaps a larger number of new TLDs, IPv6, DNSsec, IDN deployment, etc.
So the challenge for ICANN now is to reform and regularize its structure
and processes so it can effectively serve as the policy development body it
is intended to be, but in a more effective and workmanlike way than has
characterized its first 3+ years.

4.  On the .org example, this is a really good illustration of the
different roles of the policy development bodies of ICANN and the Board.
The former are made up of representatives of specific private interests;
the latter is made up of people who are charged (and in joining the Board
agree to act accordingly) with representing the public interest as a whole.
There was lots of work put into this issue by volunteers, but in trying to
ensure that the appropriate poitical compromises were made between the
various interests represented, the working group lost sight of the #1 goal
of everything ICANN does -- the continued stable operation of the DNS.
There are 3 million registrants in .org, and their continued well-being --
their right to be certain that their registrations will continue to
effectively function under a new registry operator -- is and must be the
principal criteria of any redelegation.  Once that goal is ensured, then we
can think about other things, although it is hard for me to imagine that it
would ever be appropriate to charge registrants significantly more than
cost for the purpose of creating a fund to subsidize someone's idea of a
good cause.  What the Board said in Accra is:  "Continued stable operation
of .org is the primary decisional criteria for selecting a new registry
operator."  In doing so, the Board (whose responsibility to to act in the
best interests of the entire ICANN community, including in particular those
registrants that do not otherwise participate in ICANN but nevertheless are
affected by its actions) simply applied the ICANN mission parameters to
this particular issue.  You will notice that the RFP documents otherwise
reflect much of the recommended approach and language.

5.  Finally, some have written that my participation on the list at this
time is because ICANN is "panicked."  Of course, if we don't participate,
we are accused of not engaging.  Hard to win on this point, it appears.  In
any event, this will be my last post for a while, since the next 10 days or
so will be busy.  Look for some kind of posting of reform recommendations,
as the Board said in Accra would occur, on or about June 1.

Joe Sims
Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
51 Louisiana Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963

==========
The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information.  It
is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).  If you are
not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
replying to this message and then delete it from your system.  Use,
dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
==========

- --
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 09:03:58 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] various comments

[email-masked] (Thu 05/23/02 at 08:20 AM -0400):

> 1.  ICANN is a process, not a thing.  Its only purpose in life is to serve
 <...>
> 5.  Finally, some have written that my participation on the list at this
> time is because ICANN is "panicked."  Of course, if we don't participate,
> we are accused of not engaging.  Hard to win on this point, it appears.  In
 <...>

it's not every day you meet a process that describes itself as 'we.'

cheers,
t
- --
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 06:21:54 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] various comments

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 5:20 AM
Subject: [ga] various comments

> Let me try to collectively respond to the various posts dealing with my
> previous posts.
>
> 1.  ICANN is a process, not a thing.  Its only purpose in life is to serve
> as a facilitating mechanism for issues related to the DNS for which there
> is no other available or preferable forum.  I understand that there are
> people out there who don't like that idea, and wish it were not so, but
> there are  also people out there that do like the concept, and so far, the
> latter have been more influential than the former.

No ICANN is not a process it is a thing. At this time it is a California Non
Profit Corporation and that is that.

>
> 2.  ICANN's mission, simply put, is to provide a forum for discussion,
> consensus building where possible, and decision-making on matters which
are
> either necessary or highly useful to the continued effective operation of
> the DNS.

So then neither ICANN or any of its children should be making any specific
decisions on the operation of the Internet or what protocols are routed on
it per se... As they can only attend to the DNS issues... Not a bad idea -
divest the PSO into their own Organizational tree.

> I understand that reasonable people can and do differ about the
> parameters of that mission, and so it continues to be debated. Some people
> think there is a broad consensus on this point, and others do not; in the
> meantime, decisions will be made by those with the ability to make them,
> exercising their best judgment as to the course of conduct that most
> conforms with the first sentence of this paragraph.

Without any real accountability per se as well.

>
> 3.  In response to Jefsey, the main accomplishment of ICANN  will always
be
> the continued stable operation of the DNS, for the benefit of all those
> that rely on it.

Then at this point ICANN is incompetent since it cannot even generate a set
of uniform end user DNS rights. Nor can it create nor has it created a full
set of operational models before ramming the solutions down the worlds
gullet in one fell swoop.

> If ICANN can provide the forum for discussion and debate,
> and make decisions as felt necessary, with the result that (despite all
the
> forces to the contrary) the DNS continues to perform effectively, that
will
> validate its existence.

It cant. Its structure is too wide to encompass a specific goal like this.

Todd

- --
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 06:32:22 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World

James - you are dead on. ICANN needs to divest itself from the Standards
Orgs and lose the entire PSO hierarchy. No other solution is reasonable or
workable in my book.

Todd Glassey

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
To: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>; "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World

> Marilyn, what about the theory that standard setting is (a) a potentially
> competitive field, and ICANN would benefit from a little more competition,
> and (b) it is unusual for a standards organization to openly declare that
it
> is against being bound by consensus, and (c), and it is really unusual for
a
> body that wants to *govern* to openly declare it should have a self
> selecting board?   How do you explain these things to your friends?
> Jamie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
> To: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>; "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>;
> "Names council (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>; "Business Constituency
> Secretariat (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>; "Alejandro Pisanty
> (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:51 PM
> Subject: RE: [ga] The Real World
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 #1219
*************************