Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1229
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, May 25 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1229

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 21:46:40 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Joe Sims and Scholarship [Was Re: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions]

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> Are they on line somewhere so that readers can seee what I am talking about in
> context? 

I was going to blog them over the weekend. But since you brought it up...

http://www.lclark.edu/org/jsebl/current.html

   -- 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 21:50:15 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Joe Sims and Scholarship [Was Re: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions]

> http://www.lclark.edu/org/jsebl/current.html

My mistake. Those are just the abstracts. The complete articles require
access to Westlaw (a fee-based online information service).

   -- 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: Sat, 25 May 2002 00:32:33 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Joe Sims and Scholarship [Was Re: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions]

Bret and all assembly members,

Bret Fausett wrote:

> Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> > Are they on line somewhere so that readers can seee what I am talking about in
> > context?
>
> I was going to blog them over the weekend. But since you brought it up...
>
> http://www.lclark.edu/org/jsebl/current.html

  Well Brett sense you brought this up...

  The URL  you reference Bret is not a very good one
in that none of the "Brief descriptions" listed at this URL
are complete texts.  The complete text's are at Westlaw
if you have a login to access them...  So Again Michael is correct in
pointing out that there is not sufficient context publicly available.

>
>
>    -- Bret
>
>

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: Sat, 25 May 2002 18:29:28 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions

On Fri, 24 May 2002 12:55:02 -0400, "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>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.  

But this is not a minor issue but in the eyes of many the most
important issue.  This is like saying that King George III and George
Washington agreed on everything except whether Americans should get a
vote in their own Government.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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: Sat, 25 May 2002 03:19:27 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Vote information forwarded

> The results of the GA vote on the two motions has been
> forwarded to the DNSO Names Council, the ICANN President,
> the GAC Chairman and Secretariat and the US DoC (to the 
> Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and 
> Information).
> 

Please publish copies of the covering letters you sent to each recipient.
Regards,
Joanna 

- --
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: Sat, 25 May 2002 04:53:05 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Vote information forwarded

Alexander,
Apparently, you have forwarded the results of the Vote without the wording
of the Motions themselves. Recipients have not even been given the URL for
the Motions.

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00209.html.

And, so far as both the GAC and the DoC is concerned, they should not have
to rely on a third party host site (which may break) for this important
text. As a matter of public record, the full text of the Motions should have
accompanied these results.

Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Svensson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 3:42 AM
> To: Joanna Lane
> Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Vote information forwarded
>
>
> At 25.05.2002 03:19, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >> The results of the GA vote on the two motions has been
> >> forwarded to the DNSO Names Council, the ICANN President,
> >> the GAC Chairman and Secretariat and the US DoC (to the
> >> Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
> >> Information).
> >>
> >
> >Please publish copies of the covering letters you sent to each recipient.
> >Regards,
> >Joanna >

- --
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: Sat, 25 May 2002 05:44:43 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Does-Not-Exist reports vote and debate

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

      The GA Vote: Lies, damned lies, and numbers.
      Fri May 24 11:59:45 CEST 2002
      The DNSO's General Assembly has voted on two motions. The first one,
calling for a re-bid (termed "open competition") of ICANN functions received
148 votes in favor, 54 against, and 15 abstentions. The second one,
emphasizing core principles for ICANN evolution and reform, received 164
votes in favor, 33 against, and 19 abstentions.

      What does all this mean? Most importantly, the GA voting registry's
members (more precisely: 75% of those who decided to participate in the
vote) insist in ICANN respecting the fundamental principles, including
transparent process, broad input into policy-making, which must include
meaningful individual and non-commercial participation, and accountability
(including independent review of decisions) (quoted from motion two).
Second, 67.9% of those who participated in the vote also seem to be close to
giving up on the current reform process, and hope that an open competition
aiminng to achieve comprehensive privatization and internationalization of
DNS services, consistent with the need for stability, but also innovation,
competition and freedom (quoted from motion one) could help.

      That's all - there's not much more to this vote: It's not a statement
of the DNSO constituencies' consensus. It's not binding to anyone, neither
to the Names Council, nor to the board, nor to the DoC.

      Now, what kind of news does that create on ICANNwatch? Editor Ted
Byfield posts an item titled "DNSO GA Votes to Ask Commerce to Re-bid
ICANN's Gig". In that item, he does not even mention that two motions
existed. Now, that's Internet journalism at its best, don't you think?

      CPTech's James Love, the proponent of the original "re-bid" motion, at
least gives a full account of the facts in this message to his random-bits
mailing list - if you look closely enough. Because, of course, the motion
which drew less votes in favor (he ridiculously calls it the "nuclear
option" - bad enough, it's a firecracker at best) is "the most important
vote".

- --
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: Sat, 25 May 2002 06:01:50 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] consensus on methods to select board members

One of the major issues on the current ICANN reform effort concerns the
decision about how ICANN will select its board members.  There is one issue
that seems ripe for seeking a consensus on the GA, and that concerns the
narrow issue of whether or not the ICANN board will somehow be able to
accept or reject "nominations" to its board, or even more important, should
the ICANN board be permitted to elect its own board members.  Some board
members, such as Linda Wilson, seem to think that the ICANN board selection
mechanisms should be similiar to that of a Univeristy or private
corporation, that essentially chooses its own board members.   Even if there
is not agreement on the specific method of election of board members, the GA
should express opposition to the notion advanced by the staff and BOD that
the BOD itself should be the elector of board members.   If the BOD is the
elector of board members, there will be no chance that anyone ciritical of
the board policies or actions will ever be elected to the board.  I would
like to see a debate and a proposal for a resolution on this narrow
question.
Jamie

Wilson on Q 28
"I think that the Board should individually elect new members to the Board
....i.e. the NomCom should present its slate, and the Board should be free
to decline to accept any or all. This is a safeguard for the
NomCom....giving it full incentive to find nominees that can win the vote of
the Board, and taking advantage of the knowledge that the Board members have
of the individuals involved and their suitablitity for the challenges of
Board membership.
The probability of the Board's declining to seat a NomCom nominee is small,
especially if the NomCom is formed with representation from the Board.
Allowing acceptance or rejection on an individual basis also removes the
timing difficulty of rejecting the whole slate which would be the Board's
only choice if an unsuitable candidate were proposed. "

- --------------------------------
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: Sat, 25 May 2002 12:13:46 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ITU-I and Joe Sims

- --=======1C2618C8=======
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4F913D6B; boundary="=====================_7537939==_.ALT"

- --=====================_7537939==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4F913D6B; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear all,
Many think Joe Sims has been kind enough to come on this GA to deflate the 
impact of the vote. To tell Brett how great he was and how poor Michael is. 
Divide to reign. Also to create hopes: promises only commit those who 
receive them. etc... I do not think so. Others could have done that.

1. Stuart has called upon the Govs
2. the Govs have a program (I quote it in PS) which is the WSIS. Obviously 
it is not a GAC response, but it cannot be inconsistent with it. It makes 
the response to Stuart simple and already worded and  settled. Its name is 
"ITU-I".

The problem is only when, how, with who. Joe and Jamie know it. The vote of 
the GA will be used as much by Joe than by Jamie (he was the one to 
contradict Thomas in telling the vote was acceptable, ... but worthless). 
He does not want a revolution by James Love, he wants an evolution by Joe Sims

Joe's response to Govs is most probably: "anything, but with me". This is a 
good response because there are not many people who had/have/will have key 
knowledge and influence on the international data network development 
process and on the evolution of the network society. Joe is one of them, so 
we need him in. But as far as I know JDRP is not an ITU Member. Yet.

Joe has one cover today: the ICANN. Here he came to get a feeling about the 
support/ideas he could get/use for his plans. When he tells Brett that he 
has good ideas, these ideas are good to buy Joe some time. What to give the 
@large and the GA to keep them quiet, what to tell the BoD and the DoC 
about the GA and @large dissatisfaction to support the evolution he wants. 
This is complex game. But he is good.

Now the questions are:
- - is Joe a good champion for the Internet, of for which part of the 
Internet? Who are the others?
- - is the ICANN the best position Joe can obtain? where to best contribute?
- - what is the ITU-I best architecture? and the best way to set-it up?
- - what can do the ICANN and the BoD to put that architecture together? Are 
they only a bootstrap?
- - what can the GA do to help it to be deployed?
- - how the ICANN, the GAC, the USG, the ITU, the EEC, the NGOs, the users 
promote a concerted solution to be endorsed by the WSIS final declaration, 
giving the gouvernance the legitimacy it needs?

My reading is that Joe has a far better understanding of the relation of 
Internet related businesses (Registers, Registrars, VRSN and gTLDs, TMs and 
IP, UDRP, US laws even in international context, etc. he is a lawyer) than 
pure ICANN issues (Louis' area?). So, I feel Joe's best field is the 
"mission creep".

My reading is that ITU does not want to get trapped in a complex and 
Internet strangling ITU-I, that the USG does not want it to be a decision 
place, that the Internet community would like to call it ICANN for 
continuity an stability, that Telcos are split between status-quo (large IP 
blocks owners) and new developments and better understanding of the 
Internet opportunities and threats.

As, Brett noted it, without Stuart's management by surprise (ICP-3, MdR 
Security oriented meeting, call to Govs and proposed take over of the root 
server system,  what next?) ICANN was settling. Would Stuart's resignation 
be the solution? May be a part of it (not for being the messenger of the 
bad news, but because they are to be addressed and he said he couldn't). 
But it is more complex.

1. Govs will not come and pay. So BoD wants to withdraw the call. I think 
it is to late and not opportune. Just take a note of it and take advantage 
of it as an alibi to patch a lean organization.

2. a rebid is necessary. It will come or has already come but it will not 
be public. It will probably be progressive, as GAC concerts. In any case 
Joe is to explain it this WE. He then will tour explaining the response he 
will have made endorsed by the BoD. May be will we meet in Brussels next week?

3. the only solution is to have an architecture that matches the demands 
from Joe, from the Stakeholders, from the DoC, from EEC, Japan, China, from 
the ITU-T that the real concerned parties users (GA, @large, ccTLDs, 
alt(sic)roots, Telcos, content providers, business) will not circumvent. 
The consensus I called upon when creating the http://wecann.com site.

I have described its architecture http://wecann.com/report.pdf .It leaves a 
lean ICANN at the core of the system and gives Joe a golden position, by 
his own, as a legal catalyst and advisor of the "mission creep" society. 
Most of all, it does not submit the USG to the ITU, while most probably 
satisfying both the ITU and the Govs. Question is to know if Joe is smart 
enough to understand it and good enough to adapt the ICANN to it. If he 
tries, I think he should get our support.

The ball is in his field.
Have a good and fruitful WE, Joe!
Again, just don't touch the DNS, it worked before the ICANN. It should 
still work after it.
jfc

THE GOVERNMENTS BASIS

Building the infrastructure

The role of telecommunications, investment and technology in creating the 
Information Society infrastructure and bridging the Digital Divide

Opening the gates

Achieving universal and equitable access to the Information Society
Meeting the needs of the developing world
Information as a common public good

Services and applications

The implications of the Information Society for economic, social and 
cultural development
The implications of the Information Society for science

The needs of users

Consumer protection, privacy and security
Relevant content, reflecting cultural diversity and the right to communicate

Ethics of the Information Society

User training
Worker protection and workplace privacy

Developing a framework

The roles of government, the private sector and civil society in shaping 
the Information Society
Information as a common public good (public domain information)
Intellectual property rights and legal exceptions
Freedom of expression
Telecommunication and Internet access tariff policies

ICTs and Education

ICTs as a lever for educational change
The learning environment: ICTs, teachers, learners and content
The needs of currently employed workers 

- --=====================_7537939==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4F913D6B; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
Dear all,<br>
Many think Joe Sims has been kind enough to come on this GA to deflate
the impact of the vote. To tell Brett how great he was and how poor
Michael is. Divide to reign. Also to create hopes: promises only commit
those who receive them. etc... I do not think so. Others could have done
that.<br><br>
1. Stuart has called upon the Govs <br>
2. the Govs have a program (I quote it in PS) which is the WSIS.
Obviously it is not a GAC response, but it cannot be inconsistent with
it. It makes the response to Stuart simple and already worded and&nbsp;
settled. <b><u>Its name is &quot;ITU-I&quot;</u></b>. <br><br>
The problem is only when, how, with who. Joe and Jamie know it. The vote
of the GA will be used as much by Joe than by Jamie (he was the one to
contradict Thomas in telling the vote was acceptable, ... but worthless).
He does not want a revolution by James Love, he wants an evolution by Joe
Sims<br><br>
Joe's response to Govs is most probably: &quot;anything, but with
me&quot;. This is a good response because there are not many people who
had/have/will have key knowledge and influence on the international data
network development process and on the evolution of the network society.
Joe is one of them, so we need him in. But as far as I know JDRP is not
an ITU Member. Yet.<br><br>
Joe has one cover today: the ICANN. Here he came to get a feeling about
the support/ideas he could get/use for his plans. When he tells Brett
that he has good ideas, these ideas are good to buy Joe some time. What
to give the @large and the GA to keep them quiet, what to tell the BoD
and the DoC about the GA and @large dissatisfaction to support the
evolution he wants. This is complex game. But he is good.<br><br>
Now the questions are:<br>
- - is Joe a good champion for the Internet, of for which part of the
Internet? Who are the others?<br>
- - is the ICANN the best position Joe can obtain? where to best
contribute?<br>
- - what is the ITU-I best architecture? and the best way to set-it
up?<br>
- - what can do the ICANN and the BoD to put that architecture together?
Are they only a bootstrap?<br>
- - what can the GA do to help it to be deployed?<br>
- - how the ICANN, the GAC, the USG, the ITU, the EEC, the NGOs, the users
promote a concerted solution to be endorsed by the WSIS final
declaration, giving the gouvernance the legitimacy it needs?<br><br>
My reading is that Joe has a far better understanding of the relation of
Internet related businesses (Registers, Registrars, VRSN and gTLDs, TMs
and IP, UDRP, US laws even in international context, etc. he is a lawyer)
than pure ICANN issues (Louis' area?). So, I feel Joe's best field is the
&quot;mission creep&quot;. <br><br>
My reading is that ITU does not want to get trapped in a complex and
Internet strangling ITU-I, that the USG does not want it to be a decision
place, that the Internet community would like to call it ICANN for
continuity an stability, that Telcos are split between status-quo (large
IP blocks owners) and new developments and better understanding of the
Internet opportunities and threats. <br><br>
As, Brett noted it, without Stuart's management by surprise (ICP-3, MdR
Security oriented meeting, call to Govs and proposed take over of the
root server system,&nbsp; what next?) ICANN was settling. Would Stuart's
resignation be the solution? May be a part of it (not for being the
messenger of the bad news, but because they are to be addressed and he
said he couldn't). But it is more complex.<br><br>
1. Govs will not come and pay. So BoD wants to withdraw the call. I think
it is to late and not opportune. Just take a note of it and take
advantage of it as an alibi to patch a lean organization.<br><br>
2. a rebid is necessary. It will come or has already come but it will not
be public. It will probably be progressive, as GAC concerts. In any case
Joe is to explain it this WE. He then will tour explaining the response
he will have made endorsed by the BoD. May be will we meet in Brussels
next week?<br><br>
3. the only solution is to have an architecture that matches the demands
from Joe, from the Stakeholders, from the DoC, from EEC, Japan, China,
from the ITU-T that the real concerned parties users (GA, @large, ccTLDs,
alt(sic)roots, Telcos, content providers, business) will not circumvent.
The consensus I called upon when creating the
<a href="http://wecann.com/" eudora="autourl">http://wecann.com</a>
site.<br><br>
I have described its architecture <a href="http://wecann.com/report.pdf" eudora="autourl">http://wecann.com/report.pdf</a> .It leaves a lean ICANN at the core of the system and gives Joe a golden position, by his own, as a legal catalyst and advisor of the &quot;mission creep&quot; society. Most of all, it does not submit the USG to the ITU, while most probably satisfying both the ITU and the Govs. Question is to know if Joe is smart enough to understand it and good enough to adapt the ICANN to it. If he tries, I think he should get our support.<br><br>
The ball is in his field. <br>
Have a good and fruitful WE, Joe!<br>
Again, just don't touch the DNS, it worked before the ICANN. It should still work after it.<br>
jfc<br><br>
<br>
<b>THE GOVERNMENTS BASIS<br><br>
</b><u>Building the infrastructure<br><br>
</u>The role of telecommunications, investment and technology in creating the Information Society infrastructure and bridging the Digital Divide <br><br>
<u>Opening the gates<br><br>
</u>Achieving universal and equitable access to the Information Society <br>
Meeting the needs of the developing world <br>
Information as a common public good <br><br>
<u>Services and applications <br><br>
</u>The implications of the Information Society for economic, social and cultural development <br>
The implications of the Information Society for science <br><br>
<u>The needs of users<br><br>
</u>Consumer protection, privacy and security <br>
Relevant content, reflecting cultural diversity and the right to communicate <br><br>
<u>Ethics of the Information Society<br><br>
</u>User training <br>
Worker protection and workplace privacy <br><br>
<u>Developing a framework <br><br>
</u>The roles of government, the private sector and civil society in shaping the Information Society <br>
Information as a common public good (public domain information) <br>
Intellectual property rights and legal exceptions <br>
Freedom of expression <br>
Telecommunication and Internet access tariff policies <br><br>
<u>ICTs and Education<br><br>
</u>ICTs as a lever for educational change <br>
The learning environment: ICTs, teachers, learners and content <br>
The needs of currently employed workers </html>

- --=====================_7537939==_.ALT--

- --=======1C2618C8=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4F913D6B
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

- --=======1C2618C8=======--

- --
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: Sat, 25 May 2002 10:03:17 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion

I think we're diving down into semantic extremely quickly (I think) - to
circle back, why is AA "a bad thing" and what is the counter-proposal that
replaces it with a "good thing"? Not being a lawyer, perhaps I'm failing to
grasp the significance of some small nuance here, and if that is the case, I
will certainly defer. *But*, I still believe that the draft that is on the
table is pretty responsible with the exception of the EA definition. And, as
much as I would like to continue this discussion, I fail to see where it
solves the portability issue that has been hanging around for the last
umpteen months.

The fact is that (tens of thousands of) registrants that *have been validly
identified as being legitimately representative of the interests of the
registrant* are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to move domain
names away from a registrar to one that better suits their taste. It is
certainly my view that this is the complete scope of the problem that must
be fixed - and, no one to date has been able to convincingly demonstrate
otherwise.

So, if this is the case, then why have we spent over a year on an issue
(elapsed DNSO time, not elapsed NC time) that can be very simply fixed by
removing the loophole in the contract that allows precious few registrars to
play games and wreak havoc on their registrants?

Another challenge for the GA - read the registrar constituency proposal that
has been on the table since October. (you can find it here
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00152.html). If the
consensus is that it sucks and needs to be scrapped and/or significantly
modified, or even slightly improved - then let's discuss that. If this
doesn't sound reasonable, then produce a counter-proposal and get it into
Dan's hands. Individual proposals carry just as much weight as those
generated by groups at this point - the key is to get to the ideas, not
debate which "idea" has more support*. The alternative to an effective DNSO
consensus policy process determining what happens on this issue is that the
registrars take the proposal off the table, abandon the DNSO consensus
policy process and incorporate the current proposal into a binding Code of
Conduct.

I've pulled everyone off the cc list, for the simple reason that this
message is directed at the DNSO, not at anyone one in particular (including
Dan to whom sparked this response)...

- -rwr

*That part comes soon enough.

- ----- 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 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion

> To be more precise...that gets you only part of the way. There is
> another party to the transaction who may or may not be bound by this.
> and the 'may or may not'...could vary a lot depending on the fact
> pattern.
>
> "Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> >
> > 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]
>
> --
> Dan Steinberg
>
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec fax:   (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 10:26:41 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bret Fausett's contributions

[email-masked] (Fri 05/24/02 at 12:55 PM -0400):

> 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.  <...>

joe--

well, it seems like thomas gone on a bit of a 'forum-shopping spree'
in his efforts to be the final arbiter of what the rebid vote means,
what with his kvetching here, his bitching on ICANN Watch, his very
objective remarks on his blog. you snipe at how i write about ICANN
but not about how he executes his duties within it because his work
is convenient for you and mine is not.

you of course know that legal chestnut about sunlight being the best
disinfectant, yes? you and your crew seem to prefer that limpid kind 
(wan, even), like you find in a vermeer: small rooms, just a handful
of people, very exclusive -- because it serves your purposes. i tend
to be a bit of a flaneur: i like wide, sunny boulevards teeming with 
people. now, not many people are naturally drawn to DNS politics, so
the problem, for me, is how to draw them in. making it fun--you know,
with heroes and villains, that kinda stuff--works quite well, i find.
you may see it as a very lowbrow activity; if so, fine. it still has
a useful social function of encouraging people to understand DNS pol-
itics -- and, by extension, the broader intersection of politics and 
technical standards.

you suggest that you think ICANN watch should be 'objective' but you
don't really give a flying fuck about that value per se; it's just a
posh-sounding way of trying to tie the hands of some of your critics.

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: Sun, 26 May 2002 01:20:42 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The Evasion of Dialogue, and Loss of Trust

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C20453.8D8CB240
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

HelpI thought I'd try to post some honest realities to this forum.

No doubt I'll be criticised or ignored by some - but that's not an =
issue, because I have no interests or anything to gain or lose. I'm an =
outsider to these debates, and I'm of no interest. Only the issues ARE =
of interest, because the internet has become a worldwide resource with =
the potential to benefit so many ordinary people if administered with =
honesty and true intent.

To be honest, I find it rather weird and bizarre, looking in from the =
outside, and spectating on so many squabbles, and what I'd call the =
luxury of "rich man's" arguments. The vast majority of the poor and =
excluded world inhabit a different universe. So much that gets posted on =
this (and other) forums is petty and self-justifying and just goes on =
and on.

I became drawn into the issues of DNS administration entirely by chance, =
because I wanted to develop a few websites, and encountered the problems =
of the .info roll-out, which got in the way of my private plans and =
objectives. I can honestly say that 18 months ago I had never even heard =
of ICANN (and that remains the case for the vast majority of ordinary =
people on our planet).

When I encountered failures in the mechanisms of the .info =
ICANN/Registry/Registrar agreements, I had a simple trust that I could =
turn to ICANN for help, advice, action, and intervention.

Like many before and after, I had to undergo the harsh dawning =
realisation that ICANN was not a simple benevolent organisation, run for =
the benefit of all mankind, but a complex mixture of personalities and =
power-groups, built upon a US govt mandate, and pursuing goals that were =
separate from the simplicities of user-interests.

In particular, like many others, I had to undergo the disillusionment =
that came from trusting people like Vint Cerf and then finding in terms =
of experience that the ICANN organisation he fronted was neither open, =
transparent, nor representative of ordinary people.

This disillusionment and profound disappointment grew, as I carried out =
an analysis of the .info fiasco (which, in some small way, has been =
acknowledged as informative and demonstrative of deeper problems). =
Disappointment, not because Afilias itself seemed to disregard consumer =
concerns, but because this abandonment of consumer concerns demonstrated =
the failure of ICANN's registry and registrar agreements, and ICANN's =
unwillingness to put user interests before the vested interests of =
registrars who were in alarming cases corrupt and abusive.

The disillusionment for me came when, with a sense of trust, I =
repeatedly wrote to people like Vint and Stuart and Dan H, and found =
myself ignored and the issues evaded. This was one of the most profound =
culture shocks of my life, because I was naieve and worked in care =
industries all my life, and had no real understanding of corporate power =
and what that meant.

I knew, from the inside of my specific studies and analysis of a single =
issue (.info), that ICANN themselves KNEW the corruption that had been =
allowed to take place (at the expense of consumers) and the failure of =
their own inadequate agreements. I KNEW that they KNEW. But I also knew =
that they totally evaded my questions, my pleas, my request for =
guidance, my search for definition. They avoided my "whistle-blowing" by =
sending enigmatic one-line responses like "this looks a bit worrying" or =
(more often) just failed to acknowledge my mail at all.

It was as if, by speaking the plain truth with no vested interests, I =
was a problem that had to be managed into non-existence. In truth, I was =
a very small problem on their big stage, because I was so marginal and =
unknown (and still am!).

However, the issues I flagged up have been raised increasingly by =
others. They centre on : the need for "teeth" and "sanctions" for ICANN =
to actually implement their agreements, since self-regulation leads to =
(some) registrar abuse and the desertion of the consumer. They centre on =
: the need for much more tightly defined agreements that leave =
registrars with less leeway to abuse mechanisms (no-one in the wake of =
.info and .biz can say the ICANN agreements have managed to control =
corrupt registrars or protect ordinary consumers). They centre on : the =
obvious inadequacy of letting registrars determine their own conduct, =
when "best practices" need to be mandatory and a condition of =
accreditation. They centre on : the conflicts of interest that exist =
where the registrar and registry community have disproportionate =
executive influence and power within ICANN (combined with financial =
influence) which can really only be addressed if these constituencies =
are reduced to merely "advisory" roles and are excluded from executive =
authority. They centre on : the need for the millions upon millions of =
ordinary internet users to be truly and powerfully represented on the =
ICANN board. They centre on : above all, the opaque dealings of ICANN =
(which even thwart some of their own directors) but which more =
importantly manifests itself in a lack of openness and dialogue with the =
public, the evasion of real concerns, the hidden pursuit of power, the =
arbitrary power to select registries, the failure to be accountable. Of =
all these things, the failure of ICANN to engage in honest dialogue =
seems to me to be the most telling demonstartion of a loss of integrity.

So when further serious concerns emerged in the subsequent .biz 2B names =
release, I finally listed 14 honest and serious questions which I =
personally sent to Dan Halloran, as well as posting publicly. Once =
again, registry/registrar agreements had been so loose and flimsy that =
rogue registrars had ridden roughshod through them, to the further =
disadvantage of the public ICANN should be serving. The existence of =
"exclusive registrar queues" (short queues closed to the public and =
designed to hijack best names for a friend, partner or favoured client) =
in the .biz 2B set a serious precedent for the imminent .info Landrush =
2, and showed that the "fair distribution of domain names on equal =
terms" could not take place. I combined my (frankly) very detailed =
analysis of .info and .biz name distribution, and posed 14 serious and =
fair and realistic questions to Dan Halloran. I did this on behalf of =
thousands like myself who felt these deserved (at least) to be responded =
to. Two weeks later, Dan Halloran has not even bothered to acknowledge =
my letter.

OK - I'm a complete nobody (and proud of it... I'd rather be aligned =
with the disenfranchised and the poor majority). But I tell you this : =
it just demonstrates to me how ICANN evades, and wriggles, and =
consciously avoids dialogue except on its own terms, when it purports to =
work for the public interest.

Now turn to the GA motion for a re-bid and how can it come as any =
surprise that a significant majority of those who voted wanted ICANN to =
be wholly re-structured, possibly by being replaced?

It's no good arguing that there was a second motion which got even more =
votes. If a swindler defrauded a poor person of their life savings, and =
70% of people thought they should get a life sentence, and 80% thought =
they should at least get 10 years in prison and should change their =
ways... what would it tell you? What is the majority view? The first =
view (the more severe one) is actually the majority view because it is =
obvious to anyone with commonsense that an established majority want the =
severe option, but if they couldn't get that they'd still argue for the =
less severe sentence and vote for that. A further 10% would also come on =
board for that soft sentence, but that wouldn't equal "consensus". Since =
a clear majority already voted for the severe option, to deny this (just =
because they also voted for the soft option) would be a rejection of =
democracy.

I'd like to ask the election monitors (in the interests of clarity): how =
many people voted for both motion 1 AND motion 2? This would not require =
the disclosure of personal votes, but would clarify things.

Please - I FORMALLY REQUEST the disclosure of these statistics, because =
they are in the public interest of the GA to properly weigh what you =
call "consensus".

Now I said at the outset that I'd try to post some honest realities. =
It's not a matter of partisanship, but a matter of the interests of the =
internet public as a whole (the vast majority of whom are those =
unrepresented ordinary users now to be excluded from the ICANN board).

Therefore I will concede this: the GA  and its votes are NOT =
representative, because the sample is too small. What is needed is a =
user-group consisting of millions, and election mechanisms which (if not =
perfect) more truly express the opinions of the internet public =
worldwide.

Such a user-group should NOT be generated from within ICANN (because =
ICANN in its present structure is widely midtrusted). And such a =
user-group should not limit its scope to ICANN's narrow technical =
mission (because that won't attract millions). Nevertheless, the =
internet public have a right to proper representation  - indeed a =
controlling representation - on the ICANN board.

I said that Jamie Love's motion cannot be taken as "representative". But =
it can be taken as "indicative". Indicative of an organisation which is =
mistrusted by many serious-minded people with a combination of =
experience and expertise. Indicative of the loss of faith and integrity =
sustained by the ICANN leadership for whom this is, at least, a shaming =
repudiation. But to me, it is just a further indication of what, quite =
privately, came to be my own disappointment and disillusionment. It =
shows me that many people like myself have been shocked by the lack of =
openness, the evasion of dialogue, the abandonment of the consumer =
through inept and non-implemented agreements. It confirms my own =
(unsought) experiences of opaque "closed" agendas, and the staggering =
discourtesies and marginalisation encountered at the hands of people who =
no longer have my trust.

Clearly they no longer have the trust of the voting members of the GA.

But much more importantly, this internet, this force for good in a =
troubled world, is far too important to be managed like a private =
fiefdom. Total trust, total openness is a pre-requisite.

That trust and that openness does not exist.

Richard Henderson
www.theInternetChallenge.com
=20

- ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C20453.8D8CB240
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Help</TITLE>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><BASE=20
href=3Dfile://C:\WINDOWS\>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>I thought I'd try to post some honest realities to this =
forum.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>No doubt I'll be criticised or ignored by some - but that's not an =
issue,=20
because I have no interests or anything to gain or lose. I'm an outsider =
to=20
these debates, and I'm of no interest. Only the issues ARE of interest, =
because=20
the internet has become a worldwide resource with the potential to =
benefit so=20
many ordinary people if administered with honesty and true intent.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>To be honest, I find it rather weird and bizarre, looking in from =
the=20
outside, and spectating on so many squabbles, and what I'd call the =
luxury of=20
"rich man's" arguments. The vast majority of the poor and excluded world =
inhabit=20
a different universe. So much that gets posted on this (and other) =
forums is=20
petty and self-justifying and just goes on and on.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I became drawn into the issues of DNS administration entirely by =
chance,=20
because I wanted to develop a few websites, and encountered the problems =
of the=20
.info roll-out, which got in the way of my private plans and objectives. =
I can=20
honestly say that 18 months ago I had never even heard of ICANN (and =
that=20
remains the case for the vast majority of ordinary people on our =
planet).</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>When I encountered failures in the mechanisms of the .info=20
ICANN/Registry/Registrar agreements, I had a simple trust that I could =
turn to=20
ICANN for help, advice, action, and intervention.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Like many before and after, I had to undergo the harsh dawning =
realisation=20
that ICANN was not a simple benevolent organisation, run for the benefit =
of all=20
mankind,&nbsp;but a complex mixture of personalities and power-groups, =
built=20
upon a US govt mandate, and pursuing goals that were separate from the=20
simplicities of user-interests.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>In particular, like many others, I had to undergo the =
disillusionment that=20
came from trusting people like Vint Cerf and then finding in terms of =
experience=20
that the ICANN organisation he fronted was neither open, transparent, =
nor=20
representative of ordinary people.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>This disillusionment and profound disappointment grew, as I carried =
out an=20
analysis of the .info fiasco (which, in some small way, has been =
acknowledged as=20
informative and demonstrative of deeper problems). Disappointment, not =
because=20
Afilias itself seemed to disregard consumer concerns, but because this=20
abandonment of consumer concerns demonstrated the failure of ICANN's =
registry=20
and registrar agreements, and ICANN's unwillingness to put user =
interests before=20
the vested interests of registrars who were in alarming cases corrupt =
and=20
abusive.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>The disillusionment for me came when, with a sense of trust, I =
repeatedly=20
wrote to people like Vint and Stuart and Dan H, and found myself ignored =
and the=20
issues evaded. This was one of the most profound culture shocks of my =
life,=20
because I was naieve and worked in care industries all my life, and had =
no real=20
understanding of corporate power and what that meant.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I knew, from the inside of my specific studies and analysis of a =
single=20
issue (.info), that ICANN themselves KNEW the corruption that had been =
allowed=20
to take place (at the expense of consumers) and the failure of their own =

inadequate agreements. I KNEW that they KNEW. But I also knew that they =
totally=20
evaded my questions, my pleas, my request for guidance, my search for=20
definition. They avoided my "whistle-blowing" by sending enigmatic =
one-line=20
responses like "this looks a bit worrying" or (more often) just failed =
to=20
acknowledge my mail at all.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>It was as if, by speaking the plain truth with no vested interests, =
I was a=20
problem that had to be managed into non-existence. In truth, I was a =
very small=20
problem on their big stage, because I was so marginal and unknown (and =
still=20
am!).</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>However, the issues I flagged up have been raised increasingly by =
others.=20
They centre on : the need for "teeth" and "sanctions" for ICANN to =
actually=20
implement their agreements, since self-regulation leads to (some) =
registrar=20
abuse and the desertion of the consumer. They centre on : the need for =
much more=20
tightly defined agreements that leave registrars with less leeway to =
abuse=20
mechanisms (no-one in the wake of .info and .biz can say the ICANN =
agreements=20
have managed to control corrupt registrars or protect ordinary =
consumers). They=20
centre on : the obvious inadequacy of letting registrars determine their =
own=20
conduct, when "best practices" need to be mandatory and a condition of=20
accreditation. They centre on : the conflicts of interest that exist =
where the=20
registrar and registry community have disproportionate executive =
influence and=20
power within ICANN (combined with financial influence) which can really =
only be=20
addressed if these constituencies are reduced to merely "advisory" roles =
and are=20
excluded from executive authority. They centre on : the need for the =
millions=20
upon millions of ordinary internet users to be truly and powerfully =
represented=20
on the ICANN board. They centre on : above all, the opaque dealings of =
ICANN=20
(which even thwart some of their own directors) but which more =
importantly=20
manifests itself in a lack of openness and dialogue with&nbsp;the =
public, the=20
evasion of real concerns, the hidden pursuit of power, the arbitrary =
power to=20
select registries, the failure to be accountable. Of all these things, =
the=20
failure of ICANN to engage in honest dialogue seems to me to be the most =
telling=20
demonstartion of a loss of integrity.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>So when further serious concerns emerged in the subsequent .biz 2B =
names=20
release, I finally listed 14 honest and serious questions which I =
personally=20
sent to Dan Halloran, as well as posting publicly. Once again,=20
registry/registrar agreements had been so loose and flimsy that rogue =
registrars=20
had ridden roughshod through them, to the further disadvantage of the =
public=20
ICANN should be serving. The existence of "exclusive registrar queues" =
(short=20
queues closed to the public and designed to hijack best names for a =
friend,=20
partner or favoured client) in the .biz 2B set a serious precedent for =
the=20
imminent .info Landrush 2, and showed that the "fair distribution of =
domain=20
names on equal terms" could not take place. I combined my (frankly) very =

detailed analysis of .info and .biz name distribution, and posed 14 =
serious and=20
fair and realistic questions to Dan Halloran. I did this on behalf of =
thousands=20
like myself who felt these deserved (at least) to be responded to. Two =
weeks=20
later, Dan Halloran has not even bothered to acknowledge my =
letter.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>OK - I'm a complete nobody (and proud of it... I'd rather be =
aligned with=20
the disenfranchised and the poor majority). But I tell you this : it =
just=20
demonstrates to me how ICANN evades, and wriggles, and consciously =
avoids=20
dialogue except on its own terms, when it purports to work for the =
public=20
interest.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Now turn to the GA motion for a re-bid and how can it come as any =
surprise=20
that a significant majority of those who voted wanted ICANN to be wholly =

re-structured, possibly by being replaced?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>It's no good arguing that there was a second motion which got even =
more=20
votes. If a swindler defrauded a poor person of their life savings, and =
70% of=20
people thought they should get a life sentence, and 80% thought they =
should at=20
least get 10 years in prison and should change their ways... what would =
it tell=20
you? What is the majority view? The first view (the more severe one) is =
actually=20
the majority view because it is obvious to anyone with commonsense that =
an=20
established majority want the severe option, but if they couldn't get =
that=20
they'd still argue for the less severe sentence and vote for that. A =
further 10%=20
would also come on board for that soft sentence, but that wouldn't equal =

"consensus". Since a clear majority already voted for the severe option, =
to deny=20
this (just because they also voted for the soft option) would be a =
rejection of=20
democracy.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I'd like to ask the election monitors (in the interests of =
clarity): how=20
many people voted for both motion 1 AND motion 2? This would not require =
the=20
disclosure of personal votes, but would clarify things.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Please - I&nbsp;FORMALLY REQUEST the disclosure of these =
statistics,=20
because they are in the public interest of the GA to properly weigh what =
you=20
call "consensus".</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Now I said at the outset that I'd try to post some honest =
realities. It's=20
not a matter of partisanship, but a matter of the interests of the =
internet=20
public as a whole (the vast majority of whom are those unrepresented =
ordinary=20
users now to be excluded from the ICANN board).</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Therefore I will concede this: the GA&nbsp; and its votes are NOT=20
representative, because the sample is too small. What is needed is a =
user-group=20
consisting of millions, and election mechanisms which (if not perfect) =
more=20
truly express&nbsp;the&nbsp;opinions of the internet public =
worldwide.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Such a user-group should NOT be generated from within ICANN =
(because ICANN=20
in its present structure&nbsp;is widely midtrusted). And such a =
user-group=20
should not limit its scope to ICANN's narrow technical mission (because =
that=20
won't attract millions). Nevertheless, the internet public have a right =
to=20
proper representation&nbsp; - indeed a controlling representation - on =
the ICANN=20
board.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I said that Jamie Love's motion cannot be taken as =
"representative". But it=20
can be taken as "indicative". Indicative of an organisation which is =
mistrusted=20
by many serious-minded people with a combination of experience and =
expertise.=20
Indicative of the loss of faith and integrity sustained by =
the&nbsp;ICANN=20
leadership&nbsp;for whom this is, at least, a shaming repudiation. But =
to me, it=20
is just a further indication of what, quite privately, came to be my own =

disappointment and disillusionment. It shows me that many people like =
myself=20
have been shocked by the lack of openness, the&nbsp;evasion of dialogue, =
the=20
abandonment of the consumer through inept and non-implemented =
agreements. It=20
confirms my own (unsought) experiences of opaque "closed"&nbsp;agendas, =
and the=20
staggering discourtesies and marginalisation encountered at =
the&nbsp;hands of=20
people who no longer have my trust.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Clearly they no longer have the trust of the voting members of the=20
GA.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>But much more importantly, this internet, this force for good in a =
troubled=20
world, is far too important to be managed like a private fiefdom. Total =
trust,=20
total openness is a pre-requisite.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>That trust and that openness does not exist.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Richard Henderson</DIV>
<DIV><A=20
href=3D"http://www.theInternetChallenge.com">www.theInternetChallenge.com=
</A></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C20453.8D8CB240--

- --
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 #1229
*************************