Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1233
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, May 27 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1233

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

Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 10:01:48 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C2049C.595754A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

HelpIn the light of the Chair's misinterpretation of this week's vote, =
made possible by the confusing addition of a second motion;

And in the light of an analysis of how people voted, which indicated =
overwhelming preference for Motion 1;

I am left with the clear conviction that if you really want to know the =
truth, a further vote should be run, in which we should ask people to =
vote for WHICH motion they prefer.

I therefore duly request the initiation of procedures leading to this =
vote:

I prefer the Re-Bid option=20
I prefer the Self-Reform option
I oppose both options

ONE vote (X) to be permitted.

(Where those terms above refer in more detail to Motions 1 and 2 in this =
week's vote.)

I invite comments and opinions. I welcome support for this proposal. I =
recognise the inconvenience of yet another vote. I attribute that =
entirely to the obstructive actions of certain parties.

By the way, we have every right to vote for a clear outcome.

Since the Chair seems to have misinterpreted this week's vote, we =
obviously need another one to clear things up.

Those afraid of the truth, say: NO.

Richard Henderson

- ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C2049C.595754A0
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>In the light of the Chair's misinterpretation of this week's vote, =
made=20
possible by the confusing addition of a second motion;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>And in the light of an analysis of how people voted, which =
indicated=20
overwhelming preference for Motion 1;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>I am left with the clear conviction that if you really want to know =
the=20
truth, a further vote should be run, in which we should ask people to=20
vote&nbsp;for WHICH motion they prefer.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I therefore duly request the initiation of procedures leading to =
this=20
vote:</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I prefer the Re-Bid option </DIV>
<DIV>I prefer the Self-Reform option</DIV>
<DIV>I oppose both options</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>ONE vote (X) to be permitted.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>(Where those terms above refer in more detail to Motions 1 and 2 in =
this=20
week's vote.)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I invite comments and opinions. I welcome support for this =
proposal. I=20
recognise the inconvenience of yet another vote. I attribute that =
entirely to=20
the obstructive actions of certain parties.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>By the way, we have every right to vote for a clear outcome.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Since the Chair seems to have misinterpreted this week's vote, we =
obviously=20
need another one to clear things up.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Those afraid of the truth, say: NO.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Richard Henderson</DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C2049C.595754A0--

- --
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: Mon, 27 May 2002 11:16:41 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Repealing the 5 message limit.

At 10:39 a.m. 26/05/2002 -0700, George Kirikos wrote:

>Perhaps adding a chatroom (unofficial) to the DNSO GA might help some
>of the more "chatty" folks.

A good idea.

- --Joop

- --
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: Mon, 27 May 2002 10:27:31 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Analysis of This Week's Votes

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Richard Henderson
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 6:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Analysis of This Week's Votes

<snip>
* * * * * * * * * * * * *

|> What is absolutely obvious is that the majority of people wanted the
more extreme action of a Re-Bid, and that this was |> the most popular
motion because 77% of Motion 2's voters ALSO wanted to go further and
have the Re-Bid too.

Flawed logic.  You can not draw this conclussion from the analysis of
the figures.  Motion 1 was the more popular option as it had more Yes
votes from those who participated.  Attempting to portray it as anything
else is misleading.

<snip>

More flawed logic.

Can't we just accept both motions reached a majority.  I totally oppose
motion 1 but it is obvious it has enough support from others.
Attempting to denegrate the support of motion 2 doesn't help promote
motion 1, it only serves to highlight the flaws in the arguments motion
1 supporters have put forward and raises even more doubts as to the
motion being appropriate.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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 17:32:58 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Analysis of This Week's Votes

Sunday, May 26, 2002, 1:50:52 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:

> HelpI found it interesting to carry out an analysis of this week's
> votes. I was curious to see how people had voted. Had one block of
> people all voted for Motion 1 (the re-bid) and another even

And you failed because a primary premise was flawed.

The GA does not operate under majority rules, and it is not a
democracy per se.  The GA is a vehicle for consensus, and operates
under consensus rules.  Since the second motion had the most support,
it, and only it, would have most closely matched the consensus of the
GA had the vote been within the scope of the GA in the first place.

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 20:35:24 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

Richard, I don't think this is necessary.   Both motions passed by large
margins.   They were similiar, but there were a few significant differences.
People who really didn't like Motion 1 and liked Motion 2 can take comfort
in the fact that Motion 2 got a higher vote total.  I voted for both, and
don't think there is any purpose in undermining either result.   Both
commanded large majorities, and the results speak for themselves.  People
can make what they want of the results, just like they do with regard to
other elections, such as the at large election results.  If we are going to
have new votes, they should be about issues where the GA needs to express
its views.  I think one basic area concerns the issue of how the ICANN board
of directors is elected.  Others may have some other priorities.  The reform
process is rolling along.  Motion 2 asks us to provide input to the reform
process, so we should do that too.

   Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 5:01 AM
Subject: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

HelpIn the light of the Chair's misinterpretation of this week's vote, made
possible by the confusing addition of a second motion;

And in the light of an analysis of how people voted, which indicated
overwhelming preference for Motion 1;

I am left with the clear conviction that if you really want to know the
truth, a further vote should be run, in which we should ask people to vote
for WHICH motion they prefer.

I therefore duly request the initiation of procedures leading to this vote:

I prefer the Re-Bid option
I prefer the Self-Reform option
I oppose both options

ONE vote (X) to be permitted.

(Where those terms above refer in more detail to Motions 1 and 2 in this
week's vote.)

I invite comments and opinions. I welcome support for this proposal. I
recognise the inconvenience of yet another vote. I attribute that entirely
to the obstructive actions of certain parties.

By the way, we have every right to vote for a clear outcome.

Since the Chair seems to have misinterpreted this week's vote, we obviously
need another one to clear things up.

Those afraid of the truth, say: NO.

Richard Henderson

- --
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 17:59:26 -0700
From: Darrell Greenwood <[email-masked]>
Subject: ICANN Accountability (was Re: [ga] The Real World)

On 5/26/02 at 5:29 PM -0400, James Love wrote the following :

>some basic issues of accountability have to be addressed.

Yea.

Who is the ICANN board accountable to?*

Who is the management of ICANN accountable to?*

I find it interesting that the management of ICANN can prevent a
director of ICANN from seeing the ICANN books by presenting him with
policies that the board of ICANN never considered.

In http://www.icann.org/legal/auerbach-v-icann/cerf-decl-16apr02.pdf
(html at http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=763) John Gilmore
wrote the following words :

>I've been a director of several California corporations. I've read
>that part of the law myself. I've invoked it in a couple of
>occasions. I contributed significant funding for Karl's lawsuit.
>Karl is right and you and the ICANN staff are wrong. And now I find
>you lying about it in a press release. "ICANN management is merely
>carrying out its obligation to follow the wishes of the Board as a
>whole..." ICANN *management* instigated those policies, the board
>didn't. The board has never even considered them.

"The board has never even considered them."

Cheers,

Darrell

*As far as current accountability is concerned he best answer I have
seen so far to these questions is at...
 http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/formandsubstance.pdf
This is really good work and well worth reading by anybody interested
in ICANN matters, many thanks to Michael Froomkin for writing this
article and sharing it with us.

- --
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 19:56:28 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0B03_01C204EF.6CD2BBC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

HelpI Second the motion.
I agree - people afraid of the truth are the only ones=20
who have any reason to vote NO.

John
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Richard Henderson=20
  To: [email-masked]=20
  Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 4:01 AM
  Subject: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

  In the light of the Chair's misinterpretation of this week's vote, =
made possible by the confusing addition of a second motion;

  And in the light of an analysis of how people voted, which indicated =
overwhelming preference for Motion 1;

  I am left with the clear conviction that if you really want to know =
the truth, a further vote should be run, in which we should ask people =
to vote for WHICH motion they prefer.

  I therefore duly request the initiation of procedures leading to this =
vote:

  I prefer the Re-Bid option=20
  I prefer the Self-Reform option
  I oppose both options

  ONE vote (X) to be permitted.

  (Where those terms above refer in more detail to Motions 1 and 2 in =
this week's vote.)

  I invite comments and opinions. I welcome support for this proposal. I =
recognise the inconvenience of yet another vote. I attribute that =
entirely to the obstructive actions of certain parties.

  By the way, we have every right to vote for a clear outcome.

  Since the Chair seems to have misinterpreted this week's vote, we =
obviously need another one to clear things up.

  Those afraid of the truth, say: NO.

  Richard Henderson

- ------=_NextPart_000_0B03_01C204EF.6CD2BBC0
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 http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1"><BASE=20
href=3Dfile://C:\WINDOWS\>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I Second the motion.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I agree - people afraid of the truth =
are the only=20
ones </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>who have any reason to vote =
NO.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>John</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
  <DIV=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
  <A title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">Richard Henderson</A> =
</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, May 26, 2002 4:01 =
AM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [ga] Request for a =
Clarifying=20
  Vote</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>
  <DIV>In the light of the Chair's misinterpretation of this week's =
vote, made=20
  possible by the confusing addition of a second motion;</DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>And in the light of an analysis of how people voted, which =
indicated=20
  overwhelming preference for Motion 1;</DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>
  <DIV>I am left with the clear conviction that if you really want to =
know the=20
  truth, a further vote should be run, in which we should ask people to=20
  vote&nbsp;for WHICH motion they prefer.</DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>I therefore duly request the initiation of procedures leading to =
this=20
  vote:</DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>I prefer the Re-Bid option </DIV>
  <DIV>I prefer the Self-Reform option</DIV>
  <DIV>I oppose both options</DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>ONE vote (X) to be permitted.</DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>(Where those terms above refer in more detail to Motions 1 and 2 =
in this=20
  week's vote.)</DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>I invite comments and opinions. I welcome support for this =
proposal. I=20
  recognise the inconvenience of yet another vote. I attribute that =
entirely to=20
  the obstructive actions of certain parties.</DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>By the way, we have every right to vote for a clear =
outcome.</DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>Since the Chair seems to have misinterpreted this week's vote, we =

  obviously need another one to clear things up.</DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>Those afraid of the truth, say: NO.</DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>Richard Henderson</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0B03_01C204EF.6CD2BBC0--

- --
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: Mon, 27 May 2002 03:33:21 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Analysis of This Week's Votes

- --=======1DC51598=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-779F7A1D; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 02:32 27/05/02, William X Walsh said:
>The GA does not operate under majority rules, and it is not a democracy 
>per se.  The GA is a vehicle for consensus, and operates under consensus rules.

This is the real point.

These motions show:
motion 1 - that there is no consensus in the Internet community about the 
ICANN being delegated the IANA function.
motion 2 - that even in considering that ICANN is righfully delegated the 
IANA function there is no consensus about its action which should be by 
concensus.

So, motion 2 is more damaging to the BoD than motion 1 which may be voted 
by people thinking that the DoC has not properly done its job and has to do 
it. I am afraid that the Chair and Brother Axelson failed to see this. As 
WXW points it, we are in a consensus environment: the logic is tricky.

>Since the second motion had the most support, it, and only it, would have 
>most closely matched the consensus of the GA had the vote been within the 
>scope of the GA in the first place.

What the people of the GA think has actually no real interest outside. What 
is of interest is that there is no consensus with the BoD, even among the 
people which accepts its current legitimacy.
jfc

- --=======1DC51598=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-779F7A1D
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

- --=======1DC51598=======--

- --
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 22:22:43 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

[email-masked] (Sun 05/26/02 at 07:56 PM -0500):

> I agree - people afraid of the truth are the only ones 
> who have any reason to vote NO.

once we're done with this we can have a third round of motions 
trying to undo the second ones, and the only people who'll op-
pose that round will be 'afraid of the truth,' &c, &c. 

it'd nice if the GA leadership would urge this body on to take
up new issues.

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: Mon, 27 May 2002 00:32:43 -0400
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] A small antidote to "spin"

I just reviewed with some amusement the ongoing reaction
to the results of the recent GA vote on rebid and reform.

As someone who voted for both motions, I just want to make
it clear how silly people look who are attempting to say that 
the vote for one "nullifies" or "outweighs" or in any way
diminishes the vote for the other. The two are not at all
incompatible, although in my case I much preferred the 
rebid option. 

What are we to make of people who complain, after losing 
a vote, that the vote really didn't count, or didn't mean 
what it obviously did mean? 

- --MM

- --
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: Mon, 27 May 2002 01:18:09 -0400
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] A reply to Sims on .org

Certain aspects of Joe Sims' account of the .org process
need to be discussed more fully. As former Chair of the Task 
Force on .org, I just want to set the record straight about a 
few things. 

Sims:

>There was lots of work put into this issue by volunteers, but in trying to
>ensure that the appropriate poitical compromises were made between the
>various interests represented, the working group lost sight of the #1 goal
>of everything ICANN does -- the continued stable operation of the DNS.

MM:
Actually, we didn't lose sight of that at all. We took that as a
parameter. The DNSO Task Force set out to answer, very concretely
and specifically, the questions that were put to it in the Board 
resolution that was passed down to it. The Board resolution DID
ask us, "should the registry be delegated to a for-profit or non-profit 
registry, or either?" It DID NOT ask, "should the registrations of 3 
million domain names continue to function effectively?" That would
have beena rather silly question, of course, because anyone 
would answer it "yes."  

The Board asked us whether it should be sponsored or unsponsored,
what kinds of policies the domain should have, and so on. Those
are the questions the DNSO TF answered. 

One thing that Mr. Sims seems to have forgotten is that it
was ICANN staff, specifically himself and Touton, the ones
who negotiated the deal with Verisign, who were assuming,
back in May and June of 2001, that .org MUST be delegated
to a non-profit registry operator. And in fact, I was arguing with
them rather strenuously that this was a policy decision to be
made by the DNSO, not by them. This is documented in the 
Names Council archives. 

Sims:
>There are 3 million registrants in .org, and their continued well-being --
>their right to be certain that their registrations will continue to
>effectively function under a new registry operator -- is and must be the
>principal criteria of any redelegation.  Once that goal is ensured, then we
>can think about other things, 

This is of course correct. But since no one disagrees with this,
why are you saying it? The issue is not WHETHER this should
happen, but which policies and selection criteria will best ASSURE 
that it will happen. Some time between last year and the 
Accra meeting, Joe seems to have changed his mind about
this. Because if he had believed back then that commercial 
registries should not be excluded from application, then I assume
that the Board resolution passed down to the DNSO would 
not have asked us to decide whether the new delegee should
be for-profit, non-profit, or either. If you already thought you knew
the answer to that question then, why did you ask the DNSO
to rule on it?

>although it is hard for me to imagine that it
>would ever be appropriate to charge registrants significantly more than
>cost for the purpose of creating a fund to subsidize someone's idea of a
>good cause.

This is another distortion or misunderstanding that has become
prevalent among the Board. The DNSO proposal did not require 
the new registry to subsidize anything. It said that applicants could 
PROPOSE using surplus funds in certain ways but it did not require 
them to, and it also tried to define limits on such subsidies in order to 
discourage just the kind of wasteful spending that Sims must have in 
mind. In effect, we were flagging the issue and leaving it to the Board to 
exercise its own good judgement in that regard. If the Board thought 
that proposals without any such subsidies were better, they were free 
to select them under the DNSO policy.

> What the Board said in Accra is:  "Continued stable operation
>of .org is the primary decisional criteria for selecting a new registry
>operator."  

I disagree. In my interpretation, what the Board said in Accra 
is: "we lack the discipline and professionalism to keep abreast 
of our own bottom up processes. We don't remember what 
we asked the DNSO to do 8 months ago. We didn't follow the
development of the policy and don't understand the rationale. 
So we'll just make things up as we go along, mostly in response 
to political pressure from certain interested parties."

> In doing so, the Board (whose responsibility to to act in the
>best interests of the entire ICANN community, including in particular those
>registrants that do not otherwise participate in ICANN but nevertheless are
>affected by its actions) simply applied the ICANN mission parameters to
>this particular issue.  You will notice that the RFP documents otherwise
>reflect much of the recommended approach and language.

Yes, the last statement is true. I think it's mainly because a 
few of the more conscientious Board and staff members 
realized, after all the objections you received for seeming to 
toss out the DNSO recommendations, including from people
such as Mike Roberts, that ICANN's own credibility and legitimacy
was at stake. You can't ask people to participate in 
extended policy making processes and then casually discard
the results. 

I don't think the .org process can be considered a failure yet,
but the hiccup in Accra certainly indicated that there are 
problems in ICANN's procedures. 

It's important to understand what those problems are, because 
ICANN's "reform" process seems to be predicated on the notion 
that bottom up has failed so the top must be strengthened and
insulated. But maybe that isn't a correct diagnosis. Maybe
the top is already too insulated, and it needs, if not more
"bottom up" at least more accountability and awareness.

- --MM

- --
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 23:42:08 -0700
From: Loren Stocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion]]

Hi Ross,

Unforunatly, like many Registrant's I can only jump on occasion. My ideas and
limited time are all I can contribute. Would love a summary off-list of the
existing proposals, if availble (Maybe a link to an article?).

Yet, for us the issue of WHO does transfer validations is 80/20 question. Move
this to my agent and you've solved 80% of the problem! The rest may be give
and take details. Also, it's important not to let NSI's behavior be a
distraction. A good policy with compel them to behave in the best interest of
the Registrant. 

Few recognize that NSI's double-check proceedure is really for the protection
of the Registrant -- given today's crazy system. That being said, the speed,
accuracy, and this silly process of a one-at-a-time confirmation is a very,
very big hassle. Thief's, of course, use NSI's back-door fax process to avoid
being detected. Neither Bulk nor Tucows had -- be default -- any communication
to the Registrant when a domain was stolen! I don't actually know if other
domains have been stolen of my accounts.

As to recovery, Subscriber Rights are essential. Without them we are faced
with a cost prohibitive "court intervention." If anyone hsn't seen the "Impvle
Propoals for Subscriber Rights it is now posted on WWW.EVIL.BIZ.

Best, Loren
Vanity Interanationl

"Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]> wrote:

[Apologies for the stupid formatting, for some reason, my mailer refuses to
quote this message normally]

LS: "Allow me to add my two cents here. The real issue is WHO gets to
determine Apparent Authority!"

This is one of the central issues. Glad to see someone pick up on it
(finally).

LS : "I'm appalled at the flawed logic of allowing an undisclosed 3rd
party -- the
gaining Registrar -- to determine that I am I; that He speaks for I, or that
He/or her speaks for him/or her. This is absurd! There is no definitive
business relationship with these 3rd parties, where one can say WITH
CERTAINTY* that the Registrant has an agency agreement with the existing
Registrar."

I think that you'll find that if you review the Registrar Constituency
proposal to deal with this (the IRDX document) that this is effectively
dealt with.

The major steps are:

1. Establish credentials
2. Establish relationship
3. Undertake transfer

There are checks and balances each step of the way to ensure that the
registrant, losing registrar and gaining registrar share a balance of power
and responsibility in the transaction which ensures that the proper wishes
of each party are carried out. Could the proposal be more precise? Sure, but
then again, this document represents a consensus of the Registrar
Constituency, so compromises had to made.

LS: "My point of reference is the toll-free transfer in the SMS/800. The
policy is
that the gaining RespOrg (Registrar) presents a signed directive from the
Registrant to the losing RespOrg (Registrar), who then has 48 hours to
release
the number. We then have a help desk to intervene. The magic is that the
losing RespOrg has a KNOWN-CERTAIN agency relation with the Registrant. The
gaining RespOrg may not -- and in fact my represent an imposter. Who's to
know? I, as a Registrant, want my agent --  who knows me -- to validate my
request."

Have you reviewed the PIC/CARE handbook? It shaped much of the process logic
that went into the IRDX proposal. I think that you'll find many of the
positive attributes from "Telco-world" represented. I can't say that I've
reviewed the SMS/800 documents, but I'm guessing that they are largely
similar.

LS: "Ross Wm. Rader knows this story and he has advised me that there is no
proceedure to get this domain back -- thanks to this flawed system. And
there
are no SUBSCRIPTION RIGHTS, as we've proposed to "take" it back! We will
appeal to you all if by the good graces of the current Registrar -- the 3rd
Registrar who transfered it in after it had been "whitewashed" and stripped
of
our identity -- has not returned it by next week."

No procedure currently. As long as the specific registrars who abuse Exhibit
B continue to carry out their anti-registrant/anti-industry practices, this
entire process will continue to be a mess, and short of court intervention,
most registrants in similar situations will continue to be fsck'ed.

- -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: Sun, 26 May 2002 23:39:08 -0700
From: Loren Stocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] IMPVLSE Proposal for Subscriber Rights!

Hi Folks,

You all have asked for SOLUTIONS to the many problems -- especially deletions
- -- and here's our contribution.

We've posted our proposal for "Subscriber Rights," with includes specific
fixes of the failed transfer, deletion, and pricing policies at:

http://www.800.net/subrights.htm

Or you can now click through www.evil.biz (it's the third page).

We also have our view of what Snapnames considers "benefits." Right!

http://www.800.net/unreality.htm

Or you can now click through www.evil.biz(it's the forth page).

Although we can't spend eternity discussing these issues on ICANN'S many
committees, I can assure you that these solutions will work. We have been
DIRECTLY affected by these problems, in some cases for years. 

Please e-mail with any comments, if desired.

Best Always,

Loren Stocker
Vanity International
www.800.net

- --
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: Mon, 27 May 2002 09:55:10 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Andy Mueller-Maguhn on the Board retreat

>From: Andy Mueller-Maguhn <[email-masked]>
>Subject: news from the icann board retreat
>Cc: [email-masked]
>
>Hi,
>
>just a few notices from my flight from jfk, coming from
>the board retreat near NYC in garden city, long island.
>
>Disclaimer: nothing officially has been decided, this is
>a list of my notes of informal discussions.
>
>The retreat in a way was making sense because of it was an
>open  discussion about what "icann II" should be, what the 
>outcome of the process be etc. We had a less confrontative, 
>quiete constructive discussion, just interrupted by more or
>less a few struggles. 
>
>But (just the most important points):
>
>- no atlarge election of directors to be expected
>
>   for "technical" reasons (don´t know how) the majority
>   of the board agreed to not make any direct elections
>   with this year. on the direct questions, if any directors
>   would say "no direct at-large-elections under no
>   circumstances whatsoever" 5 directors outed themself:
>   stuart (lynn), vint (cerf), hans (kraijenbrink), rob (blokzijl), 
>   helmut (schink)
>
>- the majority of the board agreed to the idee of a nomination
>   committee (s)electing board members. status of the
>   discussion is to keep 18 board members + ceo (to be
>   discussed if allowed to vote) and some rought guidelines
>   for setting up the nomination committee (including
>   seats for advisory committees in the nomcom, that
>   means gov´s included). but on the other hand side the
>   board agreed to the fact, that the empowering/selection
>   of board members by governments is not an realistic 
>   approach (at least for now)
>
>- some important questions like the jurisdiction of the
>   organization and the involvement of staff following or
>   developing policys where raised but not answered. this
>   means: we should watch the limit of the acting people 
>   even those acting with best attitutes..
>
>- in the discussion about the principles of the corporation
>   it was accepted that the outcome must be a balance
>   of interests when making policy. freedom of speech
>   was at least accepted by a majority to possibly be
>   affected when following intellectual property ideas.
>   so i do think, there is chances to involve NGO´s acting
>   in the area of freedom of speech in a "freedom of speech
>   constituency" or however to put something on the other
>   side of the intellectual property people
>
>- this means: setting up of the nomcom is the critical
>   issue now. taking balance of interests as the goal,
>   identifying all actors in the game and their interests
>   and impacts on the game is the job for the NGO community
>   in my eyes.
>
>And (watch out what comes next before calling it good news):
>
>- Stuart Lynn announced to retire in March of 2003
>
>- Joe Sims as Jones & Days announced to step out of
>   acting for ICANN soon. He did not mention a precise
>   date/time when, questioned by Vint said something
>   like "in the next month or similar to Stuarts retirement"
>
>- Andrew McLaughlin announced to be changing his
>   involvement to half time by 1st of July
>
>More stuff:
>
>- Rob came with an official (?!) paper from the european
>   commission ([email-masked]) from May 21st.
>  I will scan this and put on my website tuesday night CET as
>  well as:
>
>-  "ICANN II - Issues to be resolved" paper from Christopher
>   Wilkinson, May 2002
>
>- CENTR paper "ccTLD Requierements for International
>   Coordination of the Domain Name System) from 
>   Marianne Wolfsgruber, [email-masked] worth reading
>   (online?)

http://www.centr.org/news/ICANN-response.html

>Materials and some pictures to be on my site tuesday night
>when coming back to berlin. 
>
>
>regards,
>A.
>
>--- 
>
>Andy Mueller-Maguhn, [email-masked], Key ID 331F978, http://www.ccc.de/~andy

- --
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 #1233
*************************