Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1234
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, May 27 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1234

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

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 10:02:56 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Andy Mueller-Maguhn on the Board retreat

Dear Vint Cerf, Alejandro Pisanty, Amadeu Abril i Abril, 
Karl Auerbach, Rob Blokzijl, Ivan Moura Campos, 
Lyman Chapin, Jonathan Cohen, Frank Fitzsimmons,
Masanobu Katoh, Hans Kraaijenbrink, Sang-Hyon Kyong,
Jun Murai, Nii Quaynor, Helmut Schink, Linda S. Wilson, 
Stuart Lynn, Andrew McLaughlin, Louis Touton and Joe Sims,

BTW, it would be great if we had more reports
from the Board retreat from other members of ICANN
Board and staff -- not only in the interest of 
transparency, but also to avoid wild rumors...

Best regards,
/// Alexander

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 04:13:33 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IMPVLSE Proposal for Subscriber Rights!

Loren, all assembly members and TR TF members as well,

Loren Stocker wrote:

> 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

  I personally like this approach very much.  I can only add two
things here that I think might improve the situation and also suggest
that with these two additions that the Registrar and Registry
contracts be amended to include your approach in it's entirety.

1.) I would add that only the registrant of a domain name in any
     TLD Name space may access the RRP database for their
     domain names and that such access should be provided
      through a Web interface from every Registrar and Registry.

2.) Registered Domain Name Activity or access.  Any access
      via whois or any other facility, individual, or institution regardless
      of source to any Domain Name that was not registered by that
       entity/person must have the expressed written or digitally singed
       electronic version of a signature or the Registrant or other assigned
       and authorized agent.  Such agent(s) must be made known
       to the Registrar and the Registry by the original registrant and
       can only be changed by that Original Registrant.

>
>
> 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

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: Mon, 27 May 2002 04:29:24 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ecdiscuss] Fwd: notes from ICANN Retreat by Andy Mueller-Maguhn

Elisabeth and all,

  Yes I read all of this stuff as have many of our [INEGroup]
members.  Basically the "Retreat" was really confirming
what most of us already know.  That being that the ICANN BoD
and especially the staff are not capable of actual reform and
still wish to continue in violation of their contract requirements
in the White Paper and the MoU, as well as not keep their
own stated promises for many obvious and well publicized
reasons/excuses.

  So to make a long story short the "Ribid" motion voted
on in the DNSO GA see:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.GA-ICANN-Reform-motions.html
seems to be the best and likely the only path for a better
and accountable ICANN or ICANN-II.  Hence our many
and growing EU members will be making strategy plans in
the very near term along those lines...

Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

> Fwd:
> ==============================================================
> Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 09:55:10 +0200
> To: DNSO General Assembly <[email-masked]>
> 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

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: Mon, 27 May 2002 04:35:28 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Andy Mueller-Maguhn on the Board retreat

ALexander and all assembly members,

  SUrely you are not inferring that Andy is spreading
"Wild Rumors" are you Alexander?  I surely hope not!
In any event I trust Andy and Karl allot more
than I do any other ICANN BoD member.  I think
the rest of the BoD's history and reputation while
they have been ICANN BoD members speaks
for itself, and not very well, BTW...

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Dear Vint Cerf, Alejandro Pisanty, Amadeu Abril i Abril,
> Karl Auerbach, Rob Blokzijl, Ivan Moura Campos,
> Lyman Chapin, Jonathan Cohen, Frank Fitzsimmons,
> Masanobu Katoh, Hans Kraaijenbrink, Sang-Hyon Kyong,
> Jun Murai, Nii Quaynor, Helmut Schink, Linda S. Wilson,
> Stuart Lynn, Andrew McLaughlin, Louis Touton and Joe Sims,
>
> BTW, it would be great if we had more reports
> from the Board retreat from other members of ICANN
> Board and staff -- not only in the interest of
> transparency, but also to avoid wild rumors...
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Mon, 27 May 2002 08:19:15 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[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?).

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00152.html

>
> 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.

But what you forget is that the Gaining registrar is a representative of the
registrant. The transfer issue is not about hijackings - some may choose to
paint it as such, but the core of the problem are those registrars that
ignore the wishes of the registrant. Further to this, the IRDX document very
clearly spells out how and to whom verification must be obtained prior to a
transfer request being filed.

> Few recognize that NSI's double-check proceedure is really for the
> protection
> of the Registrant -- given today's crazy system.

With all due respect, this is a position adopted by VRSN to draw attention
away from the fact that they are reacting to the effects of healthy
competitive. This reaction was necessary because they are failing to compete
in a number of ways. The easiest way for them to stop the bleeding to other
registrars was to simply not let customers leave. Their reaction to this
economic imperative is, at best an unintended benefit, and at worst, an
anti-competitive move made strictly with the intent of disrupting the
business' of their competition and limiting the free market rights of tens
of thousands of registrants.

As you mention, "Thief's, of course, use NSI's back-door fax process to
avoid being detected.". A default n'ack policy does not solve this reality.
Given that VRSN is a world-leader in trust services, one would think that
this would be a trivial exercise for them to solve. They haven't - and
instead, have forced tens of thousands of registrants to suffer in turn.

> 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.
>

I can't speak for Bulk, but our clients receive notice of any transfer
requests that we receive.

> 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.
>

Responsible use of registrar lock as well as the current "Redemption Grace
Period" proposal appropriately address what you are trying to solve. To
restrict the portability of domains because of the bad security practices of
a precious few registrars is something that I can't imagine would be well
received by the tens of thousands of other registrants that do have a vested
interest in true registrar to registrar portability.

                       -rwr

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would
it?" -- Albert Einstein

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal
Old Skool DNS Address: http://www.byte.org/heathrow

- --
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 08:23:28 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

> 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.

As you mentioned not too long ago Ted, "the best way to deal with it is to
vote on its substance."

                       -rwr

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would
it?" -- Albert Einstein

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal
Old Skool DNS Address: http://www.byte.org/heathrow

- --
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 09:20:53 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
: As you mentioned not too long ago Ted, "the best way to deal with it is to
: vote on its substance."

   What exactly are the substantive *differences* between the nearly
identical motions, both of which were supported the same people?  Jamie

Motion 1: WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department of
Commerce (the DoC) to consider both the ICANN Board proposal for
restructuring, and alternatives offered by others for managing key Internet
resources, while providing for a public record of the process for enhanced
visibility. . . . The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting
Organization of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
asks the US Department of Commerce to have an open competition for the
services now provided by ICANN, provided that the new competition would
address the need to develop an international framework for DNS management

Motion 2.   Should the ICANN reform process fail to provide significant
improvements in these regards, it is the international Internet community's
and governments' task to consider how all of or parts of ICANN's
responsibilities could be transferred smoothly to one or more new or
existing organizations which are accountable to the international Internet
community as a whole, have clearly defined missions and are not only under
the sole control of a national department of commerce, without endangering
the stability of the DNS or the Internet as a whole.

:

:
:                        -rwr
:
:
:
:
: "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would
: it?" -- Albert Einstein
:
: Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal
: Old Skool DNS Address: http://www.byte.org/heathrow
:
: --
: 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: Mon, 27 May 2002 09:32:37 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

[email-masked] (Mon 05/27/02 at 08:23 AM -0400):

> > 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.
> 
> As you mentioned not too long ago Ted, "the best way to deal with it is to
> vote on its substance."

absolutely -- and we did. both motions passed. 

it's pretty funny to see the shrillness with which various people are
trying to dictate the true meaning of the last vote. (lest i seem too
parochial, i include [nothing personal, RH]richard henderson's recent
article on ICANN Watch[1] -- though he seems calmer than some.) these
self-appointed exegetes do not speak for me, and i don't see much evi-
dence that they speak for any but a very few others. 

do you know the old 'peas and carrots' trick, ross? it's one of a few
phrases radio players used to use to simulate a crowd. get five or so
people to repeat the phrase quickly: it sounds like an agitated crowd.

that's more or less what's going on in the GA now.

however you want to interepret the logical and procedural relation be-
tween the two motions, they did pass -- by large margins and with the
highest voter participation in the history of the GA. 

it seems to me that some of the main arguments used to oppose jamie's 
motion (institutional 'suicide,' negative if not fatal impact on GA's
credibility, etc) apply with even greater force in the case of a revi-
sionist vote. where are those arguments now? for that matter where is
the leadership of the GA: the last two motions were consolidated into
one ballot because, in large part, two separate votes would have been
too much work. ah, but a third vote -- no problem. say...why don't we
make it *two* separate new votes, ross? you know -- just to be clear.

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 08:48:14 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Andy Mueller-Maguhn on the Board retreat

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
To: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 2:55 AM
Subject: [ga] Andy Mueller-Maguhn on the Board retreat

. . . 
>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
>

Rats. Sinking Ship. Jumping.
hehehe...

- --
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 19:31:09 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] post-ICANN

- --=======7DB37310=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5CE53C7; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

As a first proposition for the post-ICANN period I would suggest the DoC to 
initiate an @large mailing list to compare with the ec-pop list of the EEC. 
It would be nice to be able to dialog with Nancy J. Victory, Karen Rose or 
Kathy Smith as any US gouvernance Membe can dialog with European people in 
charge.
jfc

- --=======7DB37310=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5CE53C7
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

- --=======7DB37310=======--

- --
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 13:58:00 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

> > > 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.
> > >
<snippage>
>
> absolutely -- and we did. both motions passed.

Agreed - but we must now deal with other motions on the same grounds.

>
> it's pretty funny to see the shrillness with which various people are
> trying to dictate the true meaning of the last vote. (lest i seem too
> parochial, i include [nothing personal, RH]richard henderson's recent
> article on ICANN Watch[1] -- though he seems calmer than some.) these
> self-appointed exegetes do not speak for me, and i don't see much evi-
> dence that they speak for any but a very few others.

>
> it seems to me that some of the main arguments used to oppose jamie's
> motion (institutional 'suicide,' negative if not fatal impact on GA's
> credibility, etc) apply with even greater force in the case of a revi-
> sionist vote. where are those arguments now? for that matter where is
> the leadership of the GA: the last two motions were consolidated into
> one ballot because, in large part, two separate votes would have been
> too much work. ah, but a third vote -- no problem. say...why don't we
> make it *two* separate new votes, ross? you know -- just to be clear.

I completely agree with every single point you raise (well, at least the
ones that I took the time to wrap my head around ;), but the fact that the
GA has exercised some self-determination cannot now be ignored. Motions and
votes must be allowed to be run through the administrative process,
regardless of the impact or suitability of the question. I raised some of
the impacts of this outcome prior to the vote and was largely ignored. It
would be further folly if the GA could not/would not deal with the impact,
which, is as I see it now, that in order for the merit of a motion to be
determined, it must go to a vote.

- -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: Mon, 27 May 2002 12:56:51 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] post-ICANN

Jefsey and all: See below: I created the GAFREE list several months back
when
it appeared that the powers around here would resort to censorship to quell
criticism of ICANN. Its open for @large discussions or anything else related
to The Namespace.

John

- ---
AGN Domain Name Services, Inc  http://www.adns.net
Since 1995. The Registry for .AMERICA, .EARTH, .LION, .USA and .Z
Define yourself or Be Defined.
Censorship-free GA list at : http://dns-o.org/mailman/listinfo/ga

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "jefsey" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 12:31 PM
Subject: [ga] post-ICANN

> As a first proposition for the post-ICANN period I would suggest the DoC
to
> initiate an @large mailing list to compare with the ec-pop list of the
EEC.
> It would be nice to be able to dialog with Nancy J. Victory, Karen Rose or
> Kathy Smith as any US gouvernance Membe can dialog with European people in
> charge.
> jfc
>

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

>
> ---
> 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
>

- --
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 20:08:10 +0200
From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] wecann.com updates

- --=======559CE3C=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-693A1047; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

The ccTLDs positions have been added to http://wecann.com
jfc

- --=======559CE3C=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-693A1047
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

- --=======559CE3C=======--

- --
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 13:57:17 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

At 09:32 AM 27/05/02 -0400, t byfield wrote:

>these self-appointed exegetes do not speak for me, and
>i don't see much evidence that they speak for any but a
>very few others.

I agree with ted, and would take it further. As what one
was thinking at the time one entered the voting booth is
unknowable to anyone but the occupant, I don't see how
anyone can accurately speak about the intended meaning
of anyone's vote but their own, and if the motion(s) is
confusing as in the present case, perhaps not even that.

The time for discussion about what a vote means, or about
what oneself (and even theorizing about what others) mean
via a yea or nay vote is in advance of the vote, not
afterwards. If voters fail to do that in advance they have
no-one to blame but themselves, though in this case an
arbitrarily shifting form/content of the motion and time
of closure could be seen as mitigating factors. If the
process is what caused the confusion, repeating the
process is unlikely to clarify anything. First fix a
flawed process if you don't like flawed outcomes, or
deal first with flawed outcomes and run the real risk
of never getting to fixing the process.

Studies have shown that people vote for politicians who are
taller than others to a statistically significant degree.
Does this mean their votes should be interpreted as meaning
that with voters, their prime determinate of suitability for
office is height, that one's electoral platform is less
important than one's platform shoes? Mebbe, but don't blame
(let alone vote to recall) the successful politician on
either account, even if s/he has a slightly taller or
shorter siamese twin who may or may not also take office,
and the twins may or may not get along. The twins made
no secret of their co-existence and aren't at fault as
it was (or should have been) clear to all what problems
might thus ensue. Now that they are rearing their ugly
heads, rather than tell (or even ask) other voters what
they were thinking, one should push to initiate/modify
rules regarding future siamese twin candidates or we'll
see more of them run in future. They may not make the
best candidates, but it seems they've got more legs. -g

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 14:23:22 -0700
From: Loren Stocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion]]]

Dear Ross,

Good comments, Grasshopper. This is "research," I believe.

Ross, your comments and mine from a different point of view. I'm a vulnerable
Registrant and you an eager-to-grow Registrar. We both have good ideas but
where I want FAILSAFE you want EASY transfers.

You make a dangerous assumption when you say the, "Gaining registrar is a
representative of the registrant." How can you really know this? This is the
essence of the problem and the 80/20 fix. What you are really supporting is
one-party consent with NO fail-safes. What good are published guidelines when
mistakes lead to disasters?

Having the losing Registrar validate is essentially a double check, or a
two-party consent model. Inherently, the gaining Registrar validates that they
are working with who they think is the Registrant, or they wouldn't process
the transfer. Do you agree? The motivation is that they want to remain
accredited, so they play by the rules.

Then, under my proposal, the losing Registrar agrees to the domain being
released. Of course they check with me. And they don't get to vote! This is
Two-party consent. It also has a failsafe in that the losing Registrar, KNOWN
to be my agent, has a duty to me. I can also ensure that I have legal recourse
- -- domestic legal recourse -- when I use Bulk Register as my Registrar as I
did in this recent fraud (I use and love Tucows too!).

Under the absurd system of today, Registrars have the ungodly powers to take
my domain when they THINK they represent the real Registrant. You must
understand that makes me vulnerable to theft from anywhere on Earth 
- -- most of which I have no practical legal recourse!

In my real-world, real-time example: how am I now to sue someone in
Copenhagen, DK -- the phony Registrant? Or the Canadian Registrar who's system
allowed a "deep link," thus bypassing the validation software? Then, once the
domain was "whitewashed," the current Registrar processed the third transfer
for the current "Registrant of record," and is so motivated to ignore my
problem. Possession rules! There are no Subscriber Rights. Just possession.

Today we have one-party consent with no fail-safes. Sure, those of us who are
in-the-know will use "locks" and enable "transfer-aways," but the vast
majority will have to get screwed first to know to do this. The system should
fail-safe... no just fail the Registrant as it does today.

Put another way, when the vast majority of inmates on death-row are guilty,
those with a "vested interest in .... portability" might say the system is
good and efficient. But, I say when 3% of the inmates are innocent, the system
MUST be changed. This is not an option. We can not allow this crazy system to
harm end users for convenience of the Registrars. Two-party consent works fine
in the SMS/800 toll-free database and we do transfer consent by Fax!

I do not believe that a confirmation e-mail from Verisign is "unintended
benefit." It is partly due to rampant fraud that they too have had to deal
with. NSI created two-party consent within the insane system in place today.
What's the big deal with confirming a transfer? If I get peace of mind, it's
worth it. Why make this safe-guard into an "anti-competitive" villain? 

In fact, the real problem here is that bulk transfers -- which I do each month
- -- lead to dozens of individual confirmations. It's not the confirmation but
the inconvenience of the confirmation that I have an issue with. Also the
speed and accuracy. It seems to take a week or so between submission and
confirmation. I always confirm twice, because it seems 10% of the
confirmations get lost. This process can be mandated to be efficient and safe.
Within the SMS/800, for example, toll-free numbers are transfer within 48
hours, given a clean request. 

Incidentally, Tucows's does not provide "transfer-away" notice by default. I
was walked through the step-by-step procedure to set up "transfer away," as
noted in the e-mail I sent Ross off-list. Bulk for sure didn't provide any
notice. My domain simply vanished.

Keep in mind that one-party consent and "notice" are not as safe as two-party
consent. It's an improvement, but not as safe. "Locks" are in most cases
overkill, and inhibit transfer by requiring manual unlocking (see "Domain Lock
Downside" on the Opensrs discussion list, today 01:05 PM PDT, 05/27/2002).

What we proposed is a two-party consent model, no exceptions. Today's system
is one-party consent, with manual "notice" and "locks" enabled by those in the
know. Ideally, why can't we have a two-party consent that is fast, accurate,
and BULK enabled? I don't see how any gaining Registrars would be hurt by a
confirming e-mail (between the losing Registrar and Registrant). Registrants
will still move their domains for all the reasons mentioned, whether the
losing Registrar likes it or not! Clearly, some Registrants are being harmed
by the existing system when it fails. So why hang on to a failed experiment?

Finally, this piecemeal path to Nirvana is nuts! It is hard to believe that a
"Redemption Grace Period" proposal -- although helpful -- is as comprehensive
as conferring "Subscriber Rights," which offers vision and purpose for the
re-design of the transfers, deletions, and wholesale pricing policies. If all
rights are derived from the subscriber, then all policies are easily designed
to support those rights.

Baby-steps are not what's needed here. It is the health of the forest -- not
the few sick trees we've happened to notice -- that's at stake! 

Best Regards,

Loren Stocker
www.800.net

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

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00152.html

>
> 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.

But what you forget is that the Gaining registrar is a representative of the
registrant. The transfer issue is not about hijackings - some may choose to
paint it as such, but the core of the problem are those registrars that
ignore the wishes of the registrant. Further to this, the IRDX document very
clearly spells out how and to whom verification must be obtained prior to a
transfer request being filed.

> Few recognize that NSI's double-check proceedure is really for the
> protection
> of the Registrant -- given today's crazy system.

With all due respect, this is a position adopted by VRSN to draw attention
away from the fact that they are reacting to the effects of healthy
competitive. This reaction was necessary because they are failing to compete
in a number of ways. The easiest way for them to stop the bleeding to other
registrars was to simply not let customers leave. Their reaction to this
economic imperative is, at best an unintended benefit, and at worst, an
anti-competitive move made strictly with the intent of disrupting the
business' of their competition and limiting the free market rights of tens
of thousands of registrants.

As you mention, "Thief's, of course, use NSI's back-door fax process to
avoid being detected.". A default n'ack policy does not solve this reality.
Given that VRSN is a world-leader in trust services, one would think that
this would be a trivial exercise for them to solve. They haven't - and
instead, have forced tens of thousands of registrants to suffer in turn.

> 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.
>

I can't speak for Bulk, but our clients receive notice of any transfer
requests that we receive.

> 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.
>

Responsible use of registrar lock as well as the current "Redemption Grace
Period" proposal appropriately address what you are trying to solve. To
restrict the portability of domains because of the bad security practices of
a precious few registrars is something that I can't imagine would be well
received by the tens of thousands of other registrants that do have a vested
interest in true registrar to registrar portability.

                       -rwr

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would
it?" -- Albert Einstein

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal
Old Skool DNS Address: http://www.byte.org/heathrow

- --
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 #1234
*************************