Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1227
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, May 24 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1227

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 12:55:02 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions

It is nice to see someone actually make some specific suggestions.  Bret's
constructively critical approach to ICANN is always a happy contrast to the
Byfield's and Froomkin's of the world, who have (at least in my memory)
never met an ICANN action or decision they liked.  And anyone who had any
naive notion that the tabloid they edit was even remotely intended to be
objective can see from the exchange between Thomas and Ted that the editors
have their own unique notion of journalism.  The comparison to Bret's
ICANNBlog, for example, is pretty stark.    I do note that Bret's suggested
revisions to the mission statement and bylaws are fairly limited, and if
you put aside those dealing with at large elections, where we simply have
an honest difference of opinion, very limited.  The ccSO issue is
complicated, and all bound up in the broader question of the cc
relationship to ICANN; it would be odd for the cc's to have the right to
elect members to the Board of an organization whose policy decisions they
refused to recognize as having any effect on them.  With respect to the
other suggested changes, they are all within the realm of reasonable
argument, and as such I am sure will be discussed at the Board retreat.
Thanks, Bret, for making the effort, and be prepared for the inevitable
conspiracy theories to follow,

Joe Sims

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 12:57:49 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.

tell me please? why would we all care if he did or he did not?
does it matter what people do in order to draft a motion? is it even
newsworthy?

t byfield wrote:
> 
> [email-masked] (Fri 05/24/02 at 11:59 AM +0200):
> 
> > Note how the motion which drew fewer "yes" votes is promoted as the
> > "most important" one in James Love's message to random-bits.
> > ICANNwatch editor Ted Byfield even goes a step further: In his
> > ICANNwatch piece at
> > <http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=759>, he does not even
> > mention motion 2.
> 
> the response i just published on ICANN watch is below.
> 
> since you're striking the heroic posture of a paragon of honesty,
> thomas, let me ask you this: did you conspire -- by which i mean
> engage in private, coordinated actions whose basic nature was not
> disclosed to all affected -- with alexander to develop the second
> motion and/or put it on the same ballot in order to defeat jamie's
> motion? if so, that's fine with me: politics, after all, is made
> of human lives. but so is journalism.
> 
> cheers,
> t
> -
> 
>    thomas--
> 
>    please re-read my second paragraph, and please notice as well
>    that i provided a link to the vote results announcement. that's a
>    subtle way of saying: *check the facts yourself.*
> 
>    i wrote about the **one** motion because that's the one i think is
>    most significant. the second motion was, in my view, not only
>    much less significant but also deeply intertwingled with the
>    slapstick style with which you, as GA chair, oversaw the whole
>    affair.
> 
>    as you may remember, you denounced the first motion and
>    obstructed in numerous ways. but then -- after the GA alternate
>    chair introduced the second motion -- you suddenly became much
>    more amenable to a vote. at the time, the GA alt chair wrote[1]: "My
>    personal opinion is that the two are indeed conflicting motions."
>    and you yourself wrote[2]:
> 
>              [1] http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg01115.html
>              [2] http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg01087.html
> 
>         Since the objective of this election is to have one resolution in
>         the end, I have added the rule that the resolution which receives
>         most "yes" votes is the one we consider the ultimate outcome of
>         the vote.
> 
>         If you folks want to go without this addition, the question would
>         have to be: "Which resolution do you want to have?" The three
>         mutually exclusive answers would be: James' resolution,
>         Alexander's resolution, no resolution at all.
> 
>    but rather than get into all this byzantiniana, i thought i'd
>    merely doff my hat at it by citing the charges and countercharges
>    hurled back and forth.
> 
>    but since you've called me a 'liar' for omitting explicit mention
>    your effort to torpedo jamie's motion, i guess i'll explicitly
>    mention it.
> 
>    it would be churlish of me to downgrade my assessment of your
>    work because you called me a name, but there's one remark i'll
>    modify. in my article, i cited the fact that jamie's motion
>    passed as redounding to your credit. perhaps it would have been
>    more to the point to say that it redounds to the credit of the GA
>    members who pursued a course they believe in despite your
>    vigorous efforts.
> 
> --
> 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

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:05:51 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] New TLD Evaluation Process Planning

Stuart,

the New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force issued its Interim Report 
on 3 Dec. 2001, and indicated that it hoped to be able to complete its Final 
Report by the middle of February for community comment, expecting to submit 
the Final Report to the Board in March.  Later in Accra, you offered 
apologies and indicated that a final report would be ready in June.

As you have been highly critical of "process" within ICANN, could you provide 
us with an update on the current activities of this Task Force (which I 
understand to be under your personal management).

It sort of seems like you have spent six months just to develop an as yet 
unreleased plan on "how" to evaluate without actually doing any "evaluation". 
 When can we expect the evaluation to commence?  When can we expect a fresh 
round of TLD applications to go "into the basket"?

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:06:20 -0700
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The  Real World

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:25:32PM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 May 2002, at 23:15 [=GMT-0400], Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> > > ... Don't mistake us. WE are users.
> >
> > A small but important part of the users, sure.
> 
> Sorry, that is utter nonsense.

That depends. If 'users' means domain owners, Kent is correct. If
'users' means people who use the Internet, Marc is.
 
> *Most* domain names are registered for business purposes. ...
> Domains registered by individuals for purposes other than
> business are a *very* tiny minority of the domains registered,

Yes.

> and in this regard the GA is completely non-representative.

That does not seem to follow. I don't think the GA is particularly
representative, but I cannot accept your assertion here without
evidence.
 
> *Any* representation scheme that gave equal weight to the various users
> of the domain name system would end up with business getting an
> overwhelming majority of the votes.
> 
> [...]

Again, correct if 'users of he domain name system' means registrants.

However, ICANN is incorporated as a 'public benefit' corporation, so
its main concern should be the public, users at large, ...

As I see it, there are three major interest groups: the public, (users
at large) interest, the businesses of Internet infrastructure (ISPs,
registries, registrars, root server operators, ...) and the business
users. 
 
When a conflict of interest arises -- as they inevitably will to
some extent -- between those, ICANN must always put the public
interest first.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 10:16:31 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Bret's Bylaws and Bret's Mission

Thanks for the note, Alexander. I've added another URL:
http://icann.blog.us/stories/2002/05/24/myGlobalElection.html

> Alexander Svensson wrote:
 Highly recommended reading:
 http://icann.blog.us/2002/05/23.html
 http://www.lextext.com/bretsbylaws.html
 http://www.lextext.com/bretsmission.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: Fri, 24 May 2002 10:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.

On Fri, 24 May 2002, t byfield wrote:

> the response i just published on ICANN watch is below....

I'd like to put in a word of defense - with the elimination of the
at-large as a vote-having body, what is happening here is the construction
of the only forum in ICANN that is open to the general internet user.

It is going to be painful.

Debate and disagreement - even feelings that underhanded actions are 
occuring - are to be expected.  And people with expressive skills are 
going to characterize and interpret events.  There's nothing wrong with 
any of that.

But we need to remember that nascent structures such as the GA can be
easily damaged by unremitting partisanship.

So, to accentuate the positive - 

No matter how one interprets the results, what did happen was this: The GA
allowed members to articulate questions, which were then refined, and
ultimately placed on a ballot.  A vote was taken and results were tallied
and posted.  A process has been created - and that is an extremely 
valuable thing.

(By-the-way, I chose not to participate in the vote.  But I do take notice 
of the results.)

		--karl--

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 10:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions

On Fri, 24 May 2002, Joe Sims wrote:

> It is nice to see someone actually make some specific suggestions.

There have been many specific suggestions made to ICANN over the years.  

Let's start with but one, the ALSC.  They made the specific recommendation
that there be an at-large that has votes for board seats.

		--karl--

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:33:44 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion

Ross,

to label the auDA solution that effectively protects the registrant community 
from abusive transfer practices as "silly" is less-than-constructive.  Is 
there any reason that you can't build upon their initiative in a manner which 
adds to their "tree-bark" approach?   You have already indicated that the FOA 
may take either a physical or electronic form and that IDRX processes should 
be automated.  To minimize the risk to the registrant that automated 
processes can pose, why not proceed along the lines of auDA's domain name PIN 
approach as a verification tool?   Are there any reasons that you have for 
objecting to this approach?

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 19:09:24 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.

- --=======19E75BD=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-167F648F; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 11:59 24/05/02, Thomas Roessler said:
>Note how the motion which drew fewer "yes" votes is promoted as the
>"most important" one in James Love's message to random-bits. ICANNwatch 
>editor Ted Byfield even goes a step further: In his ICANNwatch piece at
><http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=759>, he does not even
>mention motion 2.

I am afraid the content makes the most important one. 

- --=======19E75BD=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-167F648F
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

- --=======19E75BD=======--

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:42:59 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion

ok...here is where I weigh in. when an admitted non-lawyer makes a
statement like : 

'in agency law the specific definition is pretty clear'

...well...

I hate to be a wet blanket, but it just ain't that simple.

This is an international environment we are dealing with here folks.  A
good chunk of the world does not even operate under common law...so
agency law as Ross learned it...is totally inapplicable. there are
analogous concepts, yes. but the correspondence and statute, and caselaw
and interpretation and legal foundations...are completely different.

And even where you can call up agency law as the default
condition....there is no over-riding law that sez everywhere that agency
law cant be avoided via contractual terms somewhere. And if it turns out
in a specific instance to produce a result against public policy in a
particular jurisdiction (likely one where comsumer protection is valued
high) ...well tough...throw agency law out the window that day.  

I think Danny Younger makes a good point.  So why not focus on coming up
with a definition we all want to see inserted into contractual terms
like the agreements between registrant and registrar, etc?

Then...if we come up with what we want to see, someone else (not me) can
look at it and see how best to word it so as to reduce the risk of
challenge in court?

I figure there is no way to word anything absolutely iron-clad, but we
can probably get it close enough to deter most lawsuits except if the
domain in question is worth megabucks.  For that..alll bets are off if
someone wants to claim the tranfer was unauthorized...the courts will
just have to decide.

Anyone want to take a stab at this?

"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> 
> >
> > In the document that is not "your draft", it is written:
> >
> > "The Task Force suggests that, after further examination, that apparent
> > authority is a well-defined legal concept and the lack of specific
> definition
> > within the relevant body of ICANN policy should not be a barrier to the
> work
> > of this task force to make policy recommendations."
> >
> > Why continue to be obtuse?  Is there a particular reason why you will not
> > provide a specific definition?
> 
> Speaking from a drafting team perspective, what is obtuse about the present
> legal definition of AA? IANAL, but in agency law, the specific definition is
> pretty clear.
> 
> > Further, what problems do you have with the
> > Australian model as cited?
> 
> Speaking from a personal/Tucows/Constituency member perspective the
> Australian model is one of the finest examples of avoiding the tough
> problems that I have seen in a long time. I am sure that it works within the
> confines of their limited scope, but until CP/IP gains wider support, using
> tree-bark to conduct business in a global market over the Internet remains
> silly.
> 
> With that being said, I am sure that if there is any interest within the TF
> in exploring the .au model then I am sure that it will be discussed. My
> initial reaction is that it won't be a very productive discussion in that it
> solves the wrong problems.
> 
> -rwr

- -- 
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

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:46:04 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion

> to label the auDA solution that effectively protects the registrant
community
> from abusive transfer practices as "silly" is less-than-constructive.  Is
> there any reason that you can't build upon their initiative in a manner
which
> adds to their "tree-bark" approach?   You have already indicated that the
FOA
> may take either a physical or electronic form and that IDRX processes
should
> be automated.  To minimize the risk to the registrant that automated
> processes can pose, why not proceed along the lines of auDA's domain name
PIN
> approach as a verification tool?   Are there any reasons that you have for
> objecting to this approach?

You've neither shown that the processes they've adopted protect the
registrant community or that the IRDX proposal isn't complementary to the
auda model.

In fact, a close study of the Registrar Constituency position on the matter
(described in detail in the IRDX document) that the processes are agnostic
as to the technical and operational models adopted by the registrar. ie - it
works equally well with RRP (no pin) as it does with EPP (pin)...

Forcing registrants in India to communicate *only on paper* with a registrar
in England is silly.

Lastly, despite your implications, this whole effort is about promoting
registrant protection by guaranteeing safe and effective domain name
portability. Painting these efforts as being somehow anti-consumer, is also
silly.

- -rwr

PS - is there any reason that this is cc'ed to the universe?

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:51:27 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions

         Joe's pot-shot at ICANNWatch, below, is one of a series of 
references to it on the ga list lately.  If any subscriber to this list 
still doesn't know ICANNWatch, it's edited these days by Michael Froomkin, 
me, ted byfield, David Post, and Milton Mueller.  We're not monolithic -- 
each of us has his own viewpoints and style -- and I think the result is 
both discerning and useful.  Visit us at <www.icannwatch.org>, and decide 
for yourself.

         Joe is right that Bret's proposals -- *aside from* [1] electing 
six directors in global at-large elections and [2] establishing a ccSO -- 
are pretty limited (though Joe's characterization ignores Bret's other key 
point, which is that ICANN should trash as ill-considered all of the 
restructuring proposals in the Lynn Report).  The gist of Joe's response 
below is:  "Thank you for your suggestions, Bret.  The important ones 
(at-large elections and ccSO) are off the table, and we won't consider 
them.  We're delighted to discuss the unimportant ones."  I don't Joe could 
have better illustrated the points ted makes in 
<http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=762> if he had tried.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[email-masked]

At 12:55 PM 5/24/2002 -0400, Joe Sims wrote:
>It is nice to see someone actually make some specific suggestions.  Bret's
>constructively critical approach to ICANN is always a happy contrast to the
>Byfield's and Froomkin's of the world, who have (at least in my memory)
>never met an ICANN action or decision they liked.  And anyone who had any
>naive notion that the tabloid they edit was even remotely intended to be
>objective can see from the exchange between Thomas and Ted that the editors
>have their own unique notion of journalism.  The comparison to Bret's
>ICANNBlog, for example, is pretty stark.    I do note that Bret's suggested
>revisions to the mission statement and bylaws are fairly limited, and if
>you put aside those dealing with at large elections, where we simply have
>an honest difference of opinion, very limited.  The ccSO issue is
>complicated, and all bound up in the broader question of the cc
>relationship to ICANN; it would be odd for the cc's to have the right to
>elect members to the Board of an organization whose policy decisions they
>refused to recognize as having any effect on them.  With respect to the
>other suggested changes, they are all within the realm of reasonable
>argument, and as such I am sure will be discussed at the Board retreat.
>Thanks, Bret, for making the effort, and be prepared for the inevitable
>conspiracy theories to follow,
>
>
>Joe Sims
>
>
>
>--
>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: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:52:30 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion

> This is an international environment we are dealing with here folks.  A
> good chunk of the world does not even operate under common law...so
> agency law as Ross learned it...is totally inapplicable. there are
> analogous concepts, yes. but the correspondence and statute, and caselaw
> and interpretation and legal foundations...are completely different.

Actually no - for 99% of the transfers, the relevant jurisdiction is
Virginia or Delaware.

> I think Danny Younger makes a good point.  So why not focus on coming up
> with a definition we all want to see inserted into contractual terms
> like the agreements between registrant and registrar, etc?

I think that's the whole purpose of this exercise. Problem being, despite
the constant criticism from some quarters, there isn't a lot of drafting
going on. The core of a successful task force will always be competing
proposals surrounding by cogent debate. Without it, nothing effective can
really be accomplished.

I strongly dare the GA to put together a document such as you have described
Dan. The TF needs this.

- -rwr

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 14:07:38 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion

Thomas,

Ross writes:  I strongly dare the GA to put together a document such as you 
have described Dan. The TF needs this.

It would be nice to be able to have a sustained back-and-forth discussion on 
certain topics such as Transfers, but this becomes somewhat difficult when 
trying to work within the daily quota on the GA list.  It would be great if 
we could post directly to the Task Forces, but unfortunately they prefer to 
limit our input by filtering our comments through the GA and constituency 
reps.  I have never favored this "filtered" approach, and I would like to ask 
you to consider the possibility of opening up topic-specific mailing lists so 
that we can work in earnest on the issues that we need to address.  

I am aware of the fact that we can post directly to our "reps", but this type 
of off-the-record dialogue does not serve the interests of transparency, nor 
does it stimulate dialogue.

As I see it, we currently need to focus on the following:

WLS
A Uniform Delete Policy
Transfer Procedures
The Board's Bulk WHOIS referral to the DNSO
Hoarding/Warehousing
DNSO reform
ICANN reform
the Escrow initiative
WHOIS policy
Contract enforcement provisions
IDN policy issues
Redemption Grace Period evaluation
New TLD evaluation
Simulataneous Language Translation TF follow-up

This is quite a work-load, and limitations on posting tend to hamper the 
prospects for efficient progress on the subjects at hand.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 11:11:02 -0700
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions

Joe Sims wrote:
> ...it would be odd for the cc's to have the right to elect members to the
> Board of an organization whose policy decisions they refused to recognize as
> having any effect on them.

Maybe that's a carrot. You can imagine a CCSO in which only those ccTLDs
with a contractual relationship to ICANN had a vote for Director, or even
dividing the voting into thirds: one seat elected by those ccTLDs in a
triangular relationship, one seat elected by those in a legacy relationship,
and one seat elected by those who fund ICANN but have not yet signed a
contract. 

I was going to draft something along those lines, but thought the ccSO
solution should be proposed, at least in the first instance, by the ccSOs
themselves. 

     -- Bret

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 14:49:57 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion

> It would be nice to be able to have a sustained back-and-forth discussion
on
> certain topics such as Transfers, but this becomes somewhat difficult when
> trying to work within the daily quota on the GA list.  It would be great
if
> we could post directly to the Task Forces, but unfortunately they prefer
to
> limit our input by filtering our comments through the GA and constituency
> reps.  I have never favored this "filtered" approach, and I would like to
ask
> you to consider the possibility of opening up topic-specific mailing lists
so
> that we can work in earnest on the issues that we need to address.
>
> I am aware of the fact that we can post directly to our "reps", but this
type
> of off-the-record dialogue does not serve the interests of transparency,
nor
> does it stimulate dialogue.

The Registrar Constituency has found it useful (and this process is found
elsewhere in the DNSO as well, ie MCs Tf's...) to appoint/elect a drafting
team, that has a good understanding of the issues, to put together a
starting point document that attempts to describe the current consensus as
understood by the drafting team. The document is then release for comment
and modification and then voted on by the larger group.

The initial drafting is what is important. Over the last two or three years
that we have been doing this, we have typically taken the drafting offline
for roughly a 10 -14 day period and then presented that back to the group
via the constituency mailing list. It has worked quite well and when done
well, can actually start the consensus building process before the drafting
is completed (ie - RCOM and Tucows worked together on the initial draft of
the IRDX doc even though we had diametrically opposed views on the issue).

Just some $0.02 from another part of the DNSO...

- -rwr

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 14:53:58 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion

actually...I beg to differ. The relevant jurisdiction claimed by one
party is that. Just wait till it goes to court before making such bold
assertions please?

agreement on the rest.

"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> 
> > This is an international environment we are dealing with here folks.  A
> > good chunk of the world does not even operate under common law...so
> > agency law as Ross learned it...is totally inapplicable. there are
> > analogous concepts, yes. but the correspondence and statute, and caselaw
> > and interpretation and legal foundations...are completely different.
> 
> Actually no - for 99% of the transfers, the relevant jurisdiction is
> Virginia or Delaware.
> 
> > I think Danny Younger makes a good point.  So why not focus on coming up
> > with a definition we all want to see inserted into contractual terms
> > like the agreements between registrant and registrar, etc?
> 
> I think that's the whole purpose of this exercise. Problem being, despite
> the constant criticism from some quarters, there isn't a lot of drafting
> going on. The core of a successful task force will always be competing
> proposals surrounding by cogent debate. Without it, nothing effective can
> really be accomplished.
> 
> I strongly dare the GA to put together a document such as you have described
> Dan. The TF needs this.
> 
> -rwr

- -- 
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

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 15:01:41 -0400
From: Ken Stubbs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion

why not set up a "monitored" sub list and go to it...
just set up some "civil discourse" rules like stef used to have and allow
'RELEVENT"  unlimited posts

ken stubbs

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion

> Thomas,
>
> Ross writes:  I strongly dare the GA to put together a document such as
you
> have described Dan. The TF needs this.
>
> It would be nice to be able to have a sustained back-and-forth discussion
on
> certain topics such as Transfers, but this becomes somewhat difficult when
> trying to work within the daily quota on the GA list.  It would be great
if
> we could post directly to the Task Forces, but unfortunately they prefer
to
> limit our input by filtering our comments through the GA and constituency
> reps.  I have never favored this "filtered" approach, and I would like to
ask
> you to consider the possibility of opening up topic-specific mailing lists
so
> that we can work in earnest on the issues that we need to address.
>
> I am aware of the fact that we can post directly to our "reps", but this
type
> of off-the-record dialogue does not serve the interests of transparency,
nor
> does it stimulate dialogue.
>
> As I see it, we currently need to focus on the following:
>
> WLS
> A Uniform Delete Policy
> Transfer Procedures
> The Board's Bulk WHOIS referral to the DNSO
> Hoarding/Warehousing
> DNSO reform
> ICANN reform
> the Escrow initiative
> WHOIS policy
> Contract enforcement provisions
> IDN policy issues
> Redemption Grace Period evaluation
> New TLD evaluation
> Simulataneous Language Translation TF follow-up
>
> This is quite a work-load, and limitations on posting tend to hamper the
> prospects for efficient progress on the subjects at hand.
> --
> 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: Fri, 24 May 2002 15:03:38 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion

To be more precise (and perhaps less bold ;) Registrars and Registries have
agreed to the terms under which transfers will be conducted according to the
laws in the jurisdictions that I mentioned. Everything else flows from
there.

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion

> actually...I beg to differ. The relevant jurisdiction claimed by one
> party is that. Just wait till it goes to court before making such bold
> assertions please?
>
> agreement on the rest.
>
>
> "Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> >
> > > This is an international environment we are dealing with here folks.
A
> > > good chunk of the world does not even operate under common law...so
> > > agency law as Ross learned it...is totally inapplicable. there are
> > > analogous concepts, yes. but the correspondence and statute, and
caselaw
> > > and interpretation and legal foundations...are completely different.
> >
> > Actually no - for 99% of the transfers, the relevant jurisdiction is
> > Virginia or Delaware.
> >
> > > I think Danny Younger makes a good point.  So why not focus on coming
up
> > > with a definition we all want to see inserted into contractual terms
> > > like the agreements between registrant and registrar, etc?
> >
> > I think that's the whole purpose of this exercise. Problem being,
despite
> > the constant criticism from some quarters, there isn't a lot of drafting
> > going on. The core of a successful task force will always be competing
> > proposals surrounding by cogent debate. Without it, nothing effective
can
> > really be accomplished.
> >
> > I strongly dare the GA to put together a document such as you have
described
> > Dan. The TF needs this.
> >
> > -rwr
>
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1227
*************************