Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1220
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, May 23 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1220

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 06:42:16 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World

Enough of the credential wars.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:20 PM
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."

Not always true -  Take appples for instance. Apple trees like many of the
renowned academics in this world produce tons of apples - only like those
academic's work, the bulk of the apples are inedible since they
statistically taste bad.

It is not until you graft a shoot from a good-tasting apple tree onto your
little tree that you will get apples that not only look good but also have
some reliable and good tasting content.

This is not my rule, its gods. I did not create the apple trees of the
world...

>
> >
> >
> >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
>

- --
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 06:51:21 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] various comments - Transfer Policy Commentary

So how are HOST's transferred from one registrar to another? I have a
machine registered at NSI as a HOST ENTRY and I want to move it somewhere
else. What happens to any domains that referenced it as a name server?

and how are NIC handles maintained or are they specific to NSI?

Todd Glassey

- --
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 15:58:27 +0200
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] various comments

Dear Joe:

Interesting use of language: Why should ICANN "oversee" the 
cctld's?

Best
Ch

Subject:        	[ga] various comments
To:             	[email-masked]
From:           	"Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Date sent:      	Thu, 23 May 2002 08:20:04 -0400

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

- --
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 07:34:53 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] various comments

At 08:20 AM 23/05/02 -0400, Joe Sims wrote:

>...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.

Let us imagine that the USG sets up a not for profit
organization to oversee the rising of the sun. As the
sun continues to rise, that would validate the existence
of the organization.

>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.

So let's give NeuStar, who apparently just laid off
another 80 people and closed a couple of offices, the
inside track.

>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.

I take it then that the WLS proposal is dead, or does
Verisign continue to be your idea of a good cause? -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: Thu, 23 May 2002 07:44:35 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Proposed language changes to the MAILING LIST PAGE...

DNSO Secretariat

Your response is garbage. Voting is a specific privilege that is granted to
the open GA membership, if they register because if you were not a GA member
then how would you know what to vote on and what the issues are???

Your problem is that because you do not tell people that they cannot vote
"until they register separately from their GA mailing-list registration",
and there is an issue here because of this since it prohibits active
participation in the management process of DNSO. Further because there is no
set of terms and conditions for how voting is carried out on any page that I
saw, there is a further problem with the voting process.

As to what and how to vote the vote will be carried out,  the website is
clear on that ***IF*** you can find the link, but it is not clear from the
Mailing List Page that being able to vote is a separate qualification, nor
is there any link from the Mailing List Page to the Voting Registration
Page... which  would seem on the surface  to be an effort to increase the
mailing list population without allowing them into the voting fold...

either way its messy.

Todd Glassey

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 2:44 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed language changes to the MAILING LIST PAGE...

'Mailing list' and 'vote' are two different concepts. We don't see the use
in insisting on the GA voting process in a rubric which is dedicated to
global mailing list use (remember other people than ga ones are using this
pages daily.)
Vote is a volunteer act, and in every country when you wanna vote you go to
the dedicated office and register yourself in the voting registry. This is
exactly the same here. When you want to be a ga voter you go in the rubric
of the GA called GA voting registry. As soon as you have clicked there you
have a description of what to do to become a registrant. This seems pretty
clear like that. We will anyway try to make it clearer in the near future.
Regards,

DNSO sec.

On 22 May, todd glassey wrote :
> Proposed MAIL LIST webpage content... Note the highlighted second bullet
under the GA List block in the lower window.
>
> Todd
>
>
> -----
>
> ICANN/DNSO
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------
>
>
>       Mailing lists
>       All about mailing list subscription and archives
>
>       All DNSO mailing lists archives
>         a.. General Assembly archives.
>         b.. Names Council archives
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------
>       General procedure
>         a.. April 2001: No Cross Posting rules implementation on the DNSO
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.SECno-cross-posting-rules.html
>         b.. May 2001: Procedures for handling bounced e-mail messages
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.SECbounces-handling.html
>
>       How to subscribe to mailing lists
>
>       Announcement list
>         a.. Official announcements, only DNSO Secretariat may write to
this list.
>         b.. To subscribe (or unsubscribe) to the Announcement list, please
send an email to [email-masked] with the words subscribe announce (or
unsubscribe announce) in the body of the message.
>       General Assembly list
>         a.. Anybody interested in the DNSO issues may subscribe to this
list, only subscribers may write to this list.
>         b.. Anyone wishing to also vote as a member of the GA must
register for that separately in addition to subscribing to the mailing list.
See the Voter Registration URL at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html for more
information.
>         c.. Two main principles since the origin of this server in June
1999, explained in the welcome message sent by majordomo to every new
subscriber:
>           1.. the non cross-posting rule is reinforced
>           2.. the respect of participants is mandatory
>         d.. More explicit rules of order defined in
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
>         e.. More about GA list monitoring in
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/GA.list-monitoring.html
>         f.. Currently, there is a self-imposed limit of FIVE postings per
day on the GA mailing list, violating this limit may result in additional
filing penalties or ultimately in removal from the list as needed to
maintain order.
>         g.. To subscribe (or unsubscribe) to the General Assembly list,
please send an email to [email-masked] with the words subscribe ga (or
unsubscribe ga) in the body of the message.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------
>
>       Information from:
>      © DNSO Secretariat
>
>
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 17:38:11 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform May 2002

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b12.results.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           DNSO General Assembly
        RESULTS of vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform, May 2002

23 May 2002

RESULTS of vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform, May 2002

     Re: b12
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.GA-ICANN-Reform-motions.html

Fundamentals - Two Rules for votes by the GA:

  A. Voting Rules adopted by the GA on 6 July 2000:
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html

  B. Election Rules (Instant Runoff) adopted by the GA on 23 March 2001:
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html

Vote Tally:

  1. Electorate: 586 persons in Voting Roster, when the ballot was prepared
     http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b12.rosterindex.html

  2. Number of ballots received: 218 , Number of casted votes: 433

  3. Participation: 37.2%

  4. Vote results:

     Numbers:

               148 I FOR Motion 1 ("Request to US DoC")
                54 I vote AGAINST Motion 1
                15 I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 1

               164 I vote FOR Motion 2 ("Reform principles")
                33 I vote AGAINST Motion 2
                19 I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 2

               ---------------------------------------------
               433   TOTAL casted votes

     Percentages:

            67.9% : I FOR Motion 1 ("Request to US DoC")
            24.8% : I vote AGAINST Motion 1
             6.9% : I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 1

            75.2% : I vote FOR Motion 2 ("Reform principles")
            15.1% : I vote AGAINST Motion 2
             8.7% : I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 2

  5. Vote records:

     The calculations using Voting Rules are published in:
     http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b12.fullrecord.html.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Information from:  © DNSO Secretariat

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 11:34:41 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] various comments

by felicitous coincidence, joe's message was #666 is my mailbox. :)

anyway, gary made the point, but i'd like to underscore it. if, as
joe says, the 'stability of the DNS' is the archimedean star guid-
ing all of ICANN's action, that pretty much rules out handing .org 
to neulevel, whose half-parent is dotbombing as we speak. 

cheers,
t

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

> 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.

- --
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 17:41:10 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RESULTS: Vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform, May 2002

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b12.results.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           DNSO General Assembly
        RESULTS of vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform, May 2002

23 May 2002

RESULTS of vote on Two motions about ICANN Reform, May 2002

     Re: b12
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.GA-ICANN-Reform-motions.html

Fundamentals - Two Rules for votes by the GA:

  A. Voting Rules adopted by the GA on 6 July 2000:
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html

  B. Election Rules (Instant Runoff) adopted by the GA on 23 March 2001:
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html

Vote Tally:

  1. Electorate: 586 persons in Voting Roster, when the ballot was prepared
     http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b12.rosterindex.html

  2. Number of ballots received: 218 , Number of casted votes: 433

  3. Participation: 37.2%

  4. Vote results:

     Numbers:

               148 I FOR Motion 1 ("Request to US DoC")
                54 I vote AGAINST Motion 1
                15 I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 1

               164 I vote FOR Motion 2 ("Reform principles")
                33 I vote AGAINST Motion 2
                19 I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 2

               ---------------------------------------------
               433   TOTAL casted votes

     Percentages:

            67.9% : I FOR Motion 1 ("Request to US DoC")
            24.8% : I vote AGAINST Motion 1
             6.9% : I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 1

            75.2% : I vote FOR Motion 2 ("Reform principles")
            15.1% : I vote AGAINST Motion 2
             8.7% : I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 2

  5. Vote records:

     The calculations using Voting Rules are published in:
     http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b12.fullrecord.html.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Information from:  © DNSO Secretariat

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 17:39:08 +0200
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Proposed language changes to the MAILING LIST PAGE...

On 23 May, todd glassey wrote :
> DNSO Secretariat
> 
> Your response is garbage. Voting is a specific privilege that is granted to
> the open GA membership, if they register because if you were not a GA member
> then how would you know what to vote on and what the issues are???
>>Voting is a specific privilege that is granted to every citizen who acts to get 
a voting card. You can follow informations on the GA archives to avoid 
being flooded by thousands of email for example.
You can also wish to be informed of the GA discussion without wanting to vote,
and thus don't want to appear in a blank vote, or abstain vote result.

> Your problem is that because you do not tell people that they cannot vote
> "until they register separately from their GA mailing-list registration",
> and there is an issue here because of this since it prohibits active
>>>This has already been changed now to take your interesting point into consideration.
The ga registration message has been changed to better inform the registrant of this matter.

> participation in the management process of DNSO. Further because there is no
> set of terms and conditions for how voting is carried out on any page that I
> saw, there is a further problem with the voting process.
>>> Rules for voting process have been recently revised and can be found under 
ga administration documents from the homepage.

> As to what and how to vote the vote will be carried out,  the website is
> clear on that ***IF*** you can find the link, but it is not clear from the
> Mailing List Page that being able to vote is a separate qualification, nor
> is there any link from the Mailing List Page to the Voting Registration
> Page... which  would seem on the surface  to be an effort to increase the
> mailing list population without allowing them into the voting fold...
>>As already said the mailing list page is not there for the dear ga members only.
It is an entry place towards archive of mailing list, and general usage of the mailing lists.
Voting is note the only aim of a mailing list user. If you put everything on a front page 
you don't read anything at the end. Furthermore now we have enhanced the registration message 
for a ga subscriber, we don't see the need to mix up things on this page.
To conclude on the surface, we don't see any personnal interest in raising the ga mailing list population
which is already kind of overcrowded. 

> 
> either way its messy.
> 
> Todd Glassey
DNSO Sec.

> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
> To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 2:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Proposed language changes to the MAILING LIST PAGE...
> 
> 
> 'Mailing list' and 'vote' are two different concepts. We don't see the use
> in insisting on the GA voting process in a rubric which is dedicated to
> global mailing list use (remember other people than ga ones are using this
> pages daily.)
> Vote is a volunteer act, and in every country when you wanna vote you go to
> the dedicated office and register yourself in the voting registry. This is
> exactly the same here. When you want to be a ga voter you go in the rubric
> of the GA called GA voting registry. As soon as you have clicked there you
> have a description of what to do to become a registrant. This seems pretty
> clear like that. We will anyway try to make it clearer in the near future.
> Regards,
> 
> DNSO sec.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 22 May, todd glassey wrote :
> > Proposed MAIL LIST webpage content... Note the highlighted second bullet
> under the GA List block in the lower window.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> >
> > -----
> >
> > ICANN/DNSO
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> >
> >
> >       Mailing lists
> >       All about mailing list subscription and archives
> >
> >       All DNSO mailing lists archives
> >         a.. General Assembly archives.
> >         b.. Names Council archives
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> >       General procedure
> >         a.. April 2001: No Cross Posting rules implementation on the DNSO
> http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.SECno-cross-posting-rules.html
> >         b.. May 2001: Procedures for handling bounced e-mail messages
> http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.SECbounces-handling.html
> >
> >       How to subscribe to mailing lists
> >
> >       Announcement list
> >         a.. Official announcements, only DNSO Secretariat may write to
> this list.
> >         b.. To subscribe (or unsubscribe) to the Announcement list, please
> send an email to [email-masked] with the words subscribe announce (or
> unsubscribe announce) in the body of the message.
> >       General Assembly list
> >         a.. Anybody interested in the DNSO issues may subscribe to this
> list, only subscribers may write to this list.
> >         b.. Anyone wishing to also vote as a member of the GA must
> register for that separately in addition to subscribing to the mailing list.
> See the Voter Registration URL at
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html for more
> information.
> >         c.. Two main principles since the origin of this server in June
> 1999, explained in the welcome message sent by majordomo to every new
> subscriber:
> >           1.. the non cross-posting rule is reinforced
> >           2.. the respect of participants is mandatory
> >         d.. More explicit rules of order defined in
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
> >         e.. More about GA list monitoring in
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/GA.list-monitoring.html
> >         f.. Currently, there is a self-imposed limit of FIVE postings per
> day on the GA mailing list, violating this limit may result in additional
> filing penalties or ultimately in removal from the list as needed to
> maintain order.
> >         g.. To subscribe (or unsubscribe) to the General Assembly list,
> please send an email to [email-masked] with the words subscribe ga (or
> unsubscribe ga) in the body of the message.
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> >
> >       Information from:
> >      © DNSO Secretariat
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 08:46:38 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and procedure for vote

. Marilyn -

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "Dan Steinberg"
<[email-masked]>; "Darrell Greenwood" <[email-masked]>; "Alexander
Svensson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>; "James Love"
<[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 12:13 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Timetable and procedure for vote

> I would think the best way to deal with any risk of failure of registrars
would be to implement escrow and enforce it.

Yes you would have to. But this also means some secure method of generating
and continuously updating the Master Escrow Cache and any regional or TLD
specific caches. And a set of contingency policies for having another or
group of registrars pick up the faield publication listings for the failed
Registrar.

"this language is based on my commentary that a 'Registrar' is in actuality
a publications agent and that all.". And that in accomplishing this  they
print and make available Globally Routed (Internet) Addresses as Names, and
that these names also in some sense have a number of similarities to
existing trademarks further complicating owning them.

- ---

Also the other issue is how to be able to pull a domain name in a short
order that is running rogue. Say spewing SPAM at whoever. This is a gating
issue in the real-time management of domain names.

>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: todd glassey [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 2:05 PM
> To: todd glassey; Dan Steinberg; Darrell Greenwood; Alexander Svensson
> Cc: Thomas Roessler; James Love; General assembly list
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote
>
>
> My reasons for supporting the rebidding process were specific to no other
> major changes happening in ICANN, but if I had my druthers, an
organization
> like ICANN needs more than just this reform. ICANN is an ungoverned
> nightmare that needs to be restructured if not taken down totally.  I
favor
> the latter  myself, too.
>
> 1)    The first issue with ICANN is that the PSO's need to be restructured
> such that there is some culpability in the voting process or standards
> management efforts. Who ever heard of a global standards organization
> without any formal membership??? That makes the totality of the standards
> group the IESG and the IAB which is a real problem in and of itself. The
> only way to address this is to pull them into some other formal framework
> which they will all object to since it means giving up their unabashed
> control over what gets routed on the Internet and what doesn't.
>
> 2)    The second issues is the methods and processes that the ASO's use in
> operating the Internet Service inferences, that being the DNS and other
> Address Management efforts. This is really all of what ICANN was/should
have
> bee setup to address anyway.
>
> 3)    And the third issue is the registrars themselves and this insane set
> of rules that they are operated under at this time. The place that the
most
> reform needs to take place by the way is in the Registrar's process.
>
> One final conclusion - ICANN is only necessary as the bridge between these
> three arms of services regarding Internet Processes, and without them
under
> it, there is no reason for ICANN to exist whatsoever. maybe that is what
> needs to be taken back to congress!
>
> By the way - if the only really loud voices objecting to this posting you
> hear are ICANN or other ISOC/IETF/IAB/IESG members/management, then ask
> yourself why that is. The only logical answer is that they would be
> protecting their jobs or that which gives them cultural distinction from
> others, i.e. that which makes no longer a mere mortal...
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "Dan Steinberg"
> <[email-masked]>; "Darrell Greenwood" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>; "James Love"
> <[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 3:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote
>
>
> > Many apologies and this will be my last reply for the day -  I am sorry
> but
> > I should have been clearer in my response below that I think that this
> open
> > competition should be a regular thing. That the contracts should
regularly
> > expire and then an open competition should be held for that slot. It
will
> > keep the registrars on their toes and allow others into the mix. That
> being
> > said maybe a contract is awarded either for 4,5 or 10 years at most. But
> > there also in this process has to be a method of bouncing a registrar
for
> > not providing a basic level of service.
> >
> > And as I have said I am also very concerned for the procedural models
for
> > what happens when one registrar goes belly-up. This is happening more
and
> > more these days and well, it would cripple any number of businesses if
> their
> > registrars and/or DNS service providers happened to die out from under
> them.
> > And since it is really unlikely that the registrar would send any notice
> > ahead of time to the customer let alone a letter that said "Hey sucker -
> so
> > long - its been nice and next Thursday at noon we are no
> more...Ahahahahaha"
> > so the net-net is that the registrar would very likely just close up one
> day
> > and with no notice leave their customers high and dry.
> >
> > And rather than to force the Registrars customers to deal with this kind
> of
> > gross negligence in civil court it would be better to put in place a
> > failover model that was to be implemented and some snapshot of every
> > registrar's maps such that if one of them dies the others could pickup
the
> > pieces.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents
> >
> > Todd Glassey
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>; "Darrell Greenwood"
> > <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>; "James Love"
> > <[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 2:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote
> >
> >
> > > I have some more wording changes.
> > >
> > > See inline below.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>
> > > To: "Darrell Greenwood" <[email-masked]>
> > > Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>; "James Love"
> > > <[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 1:26 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote
> > >
> > >
> > > > After mulling it over in my mind for a few days....I suggest the
> > > > slightly modified text as follows:
> > > >
> > > > The GA  sends a mandate too the US Department of Commerce and to the
> US
> > > Federal Trade Commission
> > >
> > > to  setup and require for perpetude,
> > >
> > > > an open
> > > > competition for the services now provided by ICANN
> > >
> > > ASO's. This new competition would address the need to develop both a
US
> > > specific and an international framework for DNS management.  The
> rationale
> > > for mandating this rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the
> > intitial
> > > terms of refence for its own and the overall operaitons of the name
> space,
> > > and is at this time proposing even further changes. These proposed
> changes
> > >
> > > > have met extensive opposition in the Internet community and go even
> > > > further from the original terms of reference. The rebid would allow
> the
> > >
> > > DoC and the US Federal trade Commission to compell the ICANN board to
> > > address the critical initiatiaves and evolutionary requirements for
> > > restructuring; the alternatives offered by others for managing key
> > Internet
> > > resources; and provide for increased scrutiny in the form of a public
> > record
> > > as a part of the ongoing ICANN process audit.
> > >
> > >
> > > TTFN
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Darrell Greenwood wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/8/02 at 10:36 AM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote :
> > > > >
> > > > > >On 2002-05-08 04:25:49 -0400, James Love wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>"The GA asks the the US Department of Commerce to have an open
> > > > > >>competition for the services now provided by ICANN, provided
that
> > > > > >>the new competition would address the need to develop an
> > > > > >>international framework for DNS management.  The rationale for
> > > > > >>asking for a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the
> > > > > >>intitial terms of refence for ICANN, and is proposing even
further
> > > > > >>changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet
> > > > > >>community. The rebid would allow the DoC to consider both the
> > > > > >>ICANN board proposal for restructuring, and alternatives offered
> > > > > >>by others for managing key Internet resources."
> > > > >
> > > > > I support this text.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >
> > > > > Darrell
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
>
> --
> 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 #1220
*************************