Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1240
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, May 29 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1240

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 11:41:54 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] To: [email-masked]

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Auerbach" <[email-masked]>
To: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] To: [email-masked]

> >
> > In a private situation I'd be agreeing with you.
>
> In a private organization, the balance between openness/transparency and
> the need for smooth functioning tends to give weight to the latter over
> the former.

  snip/shift

>ICANN is a public-benefit organization.  Efficiency is not ICANN's highest
>goal, process is at least as important as the result, and public
>acceptance of decisions is as important as the decisions themselves.

I don't have much time for this right now, so some brief comment only.
I am glad that you put this as a balancing question between these two
issues. I beleive it is true for a public interest organisation like ICANN,
and agree that the balance shifts more in favour of opennness at the
"expense" of operational efficiency. We can have a sensible difference of
opinion on where the best balance lies.

> And I completely understand the need for there to be space for hard
> positions to be softened so that compromises may be reached.  But those
> are special spaces that ought to be the exception rather than the norm.

I agree. I regard this type of retreat as an exception to the norm of open
board meetings, open calls etc. Its a rather single-issue retreat also,
given the exceptional circumstances of the CEO's prognosis of company
failure. If it were to become the routine way of dealing with issues, I
would arguing that the balance had shifted too far.

WRT your message about the bylaws, I could have an argument about words like
"feasible" and the interpretation of other clauses. I don't see the bylaws
as preventing such a meeting -it was transparent to the extent that it was
well advertised in advance, and reports are filtering out of it. That could
be better handled by such as a published synopsis from the staff after, but
that's a PR issue.

The point surely is that it is the published result promised later this week
that provides the community the opportunity for comment,
argument,persuasion, participation and ultimately judgement of the Board's
conduct that is vital. not a meeting along the way?

Regards

- --
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: Tue, 28 May 2002 19:44:06 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Response to Bret

<FONT face=3D"Default Sans Serif, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" si=
ze=3D2><DIV>Bret Fausett wrote:</DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>At the same time=
, the greater ICANN community would have had a deeper<BR>understanding of t=
hese perspectives had the Board released an audio<BR>recording of its discu=
ssions. It would have allowed for more informed input<BR>in response to the=
 paper you expect might be released later this week.<BR>---<BR>&nbsp;No it =
would not.&nbsp; What is relevant is the recommendations, not the discussio=
ns (either at the retreat or in the numerous other meetings&nbsp;that have =
taken place around the world between various people over the last several m=
onths) that lead up to them.&nbsp; I assume people are not trying to navel-=
gaze here, but are trying to put forth their best notion of how this proces=
s should play out.&nbsp; So I won't ask you, or Roger Cochetti, or the Cent=
re folks, or even Jamie Love, about his private discussions on the subject.=
&nbsp; What counts to me is what you say in public, not what you say privat=
ely.</DIV><DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV>So there would be no real benefit here, exc=
ept to satisfy curiosity, but there would have been a real impact on the di=
scussion if everyone knew they were speaking for the record.&nbsp; This poi=
nt is impossible to argue, so those who argue for their peculiar brand of t=
ransparency apparently simply don't care about this effect.&nbsp; They woul=
d rather have the "benefits" of a homogenized public discussion than the be=
nefits that almost surely flow from candid conversations about complex subj=
ects.&nbsp; The logic is impossible for me to understand, so I apologize fo=
r even attempting to engage on the subject. I should have known better (alt=
hough I really did not intend to be more liberal than Marie).<BR></DIV><BR>=
<BR><BR>Joe&nbsp;Sims<BR>Jones&nbsp;Day&nbsp;Reavis&nbsp;&amp;&nbsp;Pogue<B=
R>51&nbsp;Louisiana&nbsp;Avenue&nbsp;NW<BR>Washington,&nbsp;D.C.&nbsp;20001=
<BR>Direct&nbsp;Phone:&nbsp;&nbsp;1.202.879.3863<BR>Direct&nbsp;Fax:&nbsp;&=
nbsp;1.202.626.1747<BR>Mobile&nbsp;Phone:&nbsp;&nbsp;1.703.629.3963<BR><BR>=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<BR>The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments)=
 contains information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorne=
y-client or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public informati=
on. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If y=
ou are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender =
by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Use, disse=
mination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recip=
ients is not authorized and may be unlawful.<BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D  <DIV><BR><=
/DIV><BR></FONT>=
- --
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: Tue, 28 May 2002 16:57:08 -0700
From: Loren Stocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [[ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion]]]]]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for taking the time to read this. 

It is always the Registrant that approves these really, via the Registrars --
old or new. The problem, of course, with today's system is when the first
Registrar is fooled by an imposter; the real Registrant never finds out.

Once two-party consent is in place, if the real Registrant didn't make the
transfer request they'll still have a chance to stop it.

Best, Loren

Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
Loren and all assembly members,

Loren Stocker wrote:

> Hi William and all,
>
> I don't doubt that Verisign likes it to be difficult to transfer -- just
look
> how AOL makes it all but impossible to drop.
>
> Yet, I split my real world experience with domains and the SMS/800. The
> SMS/800 is a two-party consent system that takes but 48 hour to transfer a
> number -- so it can be done! I think -- as Jeff just noted -- that we can
have
> a fail-safe and effient transfers. This must be a two-party consent,
there's
> just no other way. The motivation for fraud is too high to allow transfers
to
> be done status quo.

  Yes a two party consent seems to be the best way in which this
can be accomplished with a very high degree of success.  However
one of those two parties MUST be the registrant, and the Registrant
must have the final say in the matter.  I would add that a standard
Domain Name Transfer system (SDNTS) with assigned PKI or
other encrypted Key system can be used here to accomplish this.

  I have never had any problem with changing my Netcom account
specifics using something very similar.  I also recently using a similar
system transferred stock from one Broker to another in a matter
of less than a day securely and pretty quickly.  So I and
many of our members, and obviously other Stakeholders
are of course not very understanding of the resistance
from some Registrars and Registries as to their consternation
and resistance to getting this issue handled fairly expediently.
Yet the ICANN BoD and most especially the ICANN staff
seems to be treating this amongst a host of other issues
as some sort of policy training exercise.  I personally
fine that irresponsible and grossly damaging, and have filed
a complaint with the DOC/NTIA accordingly...

>
>
> In the meantime, what I've do with Verisign is double-confirm transfers, as
> many e-mails seem to get lost. I'm batting over 95% with transfers now that
I
> use this trick. And start early!

  Good trick!  The problem is that many new or even not so new
registrants do not know this trick, nor should they need or have too!

>
>
> Best, Loren
>
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Monday, May 27, 2002, 2:23:22 PM, Loren Stocker wrote:
>
> > But what you forget is that the Gaining registrar is a representative of
> the
> > registrant.
>
> You might have had a point, except for one thing.  Real world
> experience.
>
> The problem with your model is that the agency in charge of
> enforcement, the Registry, owns the registrar that suffers
> from the highest amount of outbound transfers, and has a vested
> interest in stemming that tide.  They use a flawed process to
> "authenticate" the outbound transfers, and have no motivation to fix
> it because all it would do is make losing customers easier for them.
>
> There is no danger to the Verisign owned registrars, because Daddy
> will protect them.
>
> This was one of the reasons why the original contact required Verisign
> to divest itself of the registrar, which ICANN (and most of the
> Registrars who supported it as well) let them get out of doing last
> year, with virtually NO additional protections in place.
>
> The facts are, in REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE, the method employed by NSI to
> verify outbound transfers has caused, and continues to cause on a
> DAILY basis, more REAL HARM to registrants, even on a financial level,
> than the the few instances of registrars implementing flawed gaining
> registrar authentication have caused.
>
> --
> 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

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: Tue, 28 May 2002 20:13:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: IOC

Do your clients know that you routinely insult participants in discussion
groups?  Do they approve?  Don't care?  Care to repudiate your attitude?

Dr. Cerf?  Care to comment about your lawyer's behavior?  Or at least
check his bills to make sure he doesn't bill you for antagonizing people?

On Tue, 28 May 2002, Joe Sims wrote:

> Jamie, you are better at PR than attempted analogy; better leave that to
> professionals.
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Sims
> Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> Washington, D.C. 20001
> Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
> 
> ==============================
> The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
> or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information. It
> is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you
> are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender
> by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Use,
> dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by
> unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
> ==============================
> 
> -- This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. Send
> mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the
> body of the message). Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

- --
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: Tue, 28 May 2002 17:28:56 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to Bret

At 07:44 PM 5/28/2002 -0400, Joe Sims wrote:
>The logic is impossible for me to understand, so I apologize for even 
>attempting to engage on the subject. I should have known better (although 
>I really did not intend to be more liberal than Marie).

Joe, if folks are more interested in debating than in getting ICANN's real 
work done, their logic is pretty straightforward.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850

- --
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: Tue, 28 May 2002 18:09:59 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Response to Bret

Small point, but for the avoidance of doubt, ICANN's attorney may want to change his signature file for personal statements that carry as much weight as a post from any old terrorist, zealot or kook that some say inhabit the GA mailing list.
Regards,
Joanna

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Joe Sims
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 7:44 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Response to Bret

Bret Fausett wrote:

At the same time, the greater ICANN community would have had a deeper
understanding of these perspectives had the Board released an audio
recording of its discussions. It would have allowed for more informed input
in response to the paper you expect might be released later this week.
- ---
 No it would not.  What is relevant is the recommendations, not the discussions (either at the retreat or in the numerous other meetings that have taken place around the world between various people over the last several months) that lead up to them.  I assume people are not trying to navel-gaze here, but are trying to put forth their best notion of how this process should play out.  So I won't ask you, or Roger Cochetti, or the Centre folks, or even Jamie Love, about his private discussions on the subject.  What counts to me is what you say in public, not what you say privately.

So there would be no real benefit here, except to satisfy curiosity, but there would have been a real impact on the discussion if everyone knew they were speaking for the record.  This point is impossible to argue, so those who argue for their peculiar brand of transparency apparently simply don't care about this effect.  They would rather have the "benefits" of a homogenized public discussion than the benefits that almost surely flow from candid conversations about complex subjects.  The logic is impossible for me to understand, so I apologize for even attempting to engage on the subject. I should have known better (although I really did not intend to be more liberal than Marie).

Joe Sims
Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
51 Louisiana Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963

==============================
The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
============================== 

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 17:55:02 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Response to Joe

Joe Sims wrote:
> No it would not.

Let's end the discussion here because we're not going to convince each
other. It's simply incomprehensible to me that the greater ICANN community
would not have benefitted from listening to the "several hours over two days
of uninterrupted discussion" that the Board engaged in. Neither a paper nor
the hour and half that we'll get in Bucharest will be an adequate
substitute. The fact that some Board members are uncomfortable thinking out
loud in public suggests to me that we need different Board members, not that
ICANN should countenance important discussions behind closed doors. Open up
all the Board meetings and allow those who are uncomfortable with that kind
of process to decide not to serve. It's a big world. Surely ICANN can find
19 competent people willing to serve the public in public.

     -- 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: Tue, 28 May 2002 21:28:13 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] To: [email-masked]

Danny,
I'm all for dialog (or dialouge) but I find it curious that you are
engaging Joe re: board openness. I admit that sometimes the flurry of
activity  gets a bit too much and I miss some announcements but as far
as I know, Joe Sims is not a board member. So would not these questions
be better focused  by directing them to the actual sitting board
members?

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Dear Joe,
> 
> I am reminded of the letter sent by J. Beckwith Burr (US DoC) to Esther Dyson
> and Mike Roberts (ICANN) on July 8, 1999 in which the comment was made:  "The
> final step of opening the Board Meetings is critical to establishing trust in
> ICANN."
> 
> You are correct in stating that this is hardly a new subject, and most of us
> can understand the need for executive sessions when personnel or legal
> matters are at issue... in this instance, however, we all would have
> benefited from a better understanding of the viewpoints on reform currently
> held by our directors.
> 
> I have appreciated the comments made by Linda Wilson that were posted to the
> Reform Committee's website.  I see value in the comments made by Alejandro
> Pisanty on the Non-Commercial list, and I am delighted that Vint Cerf will
> occasionally choose to post his thoughts to the GA list.  This type of
> openness makes it possible for us to better communicate with our directors.
> 
> Is it supposed to be a secret that Stuart, Vint, Hans, Rob, and Helmut have
> adopted the "no direct at-large-elections under no circumstances whatsoever"
> position (as reported by Andy)?  Surely we should have the benefit of knowing
> what our directors think so that we may encourage them to modify or retain
> their current positions...  Openness and transparency are all about
> "communication".  A communicative Board can engender trust, and trust is the
> real issue.
> 
> I find it sad that you have to go out of your way to defend closed meetings.
> Perhaps you too, have too much time on your hands.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Danny Younger
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 18:58:59 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] The Real World

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of James
> Love
> I think it is also relevant to mention that for all practical
> purposes, Kent
> is the only ICANN staff member who regularly engages in these debates on
> ICANN's DNSO listserves.    He is hired as a technical person, but the
> "policy" people on the ICANN staff won't participate.  This is
> unfortunate.
> I for one was pleased when Joe Sims was posting on this list, and I also
> appreciate the willingness of Vint to post here, and Alejandro to post
> regularly on the NCC list.   I wish that Dr. Lynn and other other "policy"
> people on the ICANN staff, and some other ICANN board members, like Linda
> Wilson, would engage the masses, like Kent, Vint, Alejandro (and sometimes
> Joe Sims) do.
>
>  Jamie

I see little value in postings from those on the ICANN payroll who drop ship
purported ICANN position and policy statements on this lists, then attach a
disclaimer stating they only speak in a personal non-ICANN related capacity.
The view from here is that ICANN has become so duplicitous and shady in it's
dealings, that the only way the GA can find out what is really going on is
to hang around waiting for small scraps of gossip to be thrown into the mix
by those close to the decision makers. No thanks. It's demeaning. The
general public deserve better and some of us have taken a step forward to
get it.
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: Wed, 29 May 2002 13:04:30 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election debate?

At 07:17 a.m. 29/05/2002 +1200, DPF wrote:

>The main reason against the elections seems to be variants on we can't
>make them 100% fraud free.  Well what country in the world boasts 100%
>fraud free elections - none - yet they do not cancel elections.

Election fraud by individual voters (multiple voting) is insignificant and, 
given a broad enough voters' roll, does not materially affect the outcome 
of a vote.

As for election fraud (vote buying, intimidation and bullying, ballot box 
burning) that can be orchestrated by candidates for office, this is more 
difficult in Cyberspace than it is in the physical world. Multiple 
distributed voting systems will make it even more difficult.

In short: the objection is phony.

The key reason (I must presume-since  the discussion was sub rosa) why the 
5 directors are opposed to public elections , is that ICANN may not control 
the nomination process.

- --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: Tue, 28 May 2002 22:16:01 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Research: Alternative Perspectives on Registrar Market Shares

So many people -- including quite a few GA members -- had (such helpful!)
comments on my initial Fortune 1000 work that I've extended the work
significantly.

The revised document is posted at:
  <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/registrar-choice/>.

A summary of the improvements:

* I've extended the listing from the biggest American firms (the Fortune
1000) to the biggest international firms, as reported in the Forbes
International 500.  The results are consistent with intuition -- that non-US
registrars have somewhat larger market share in this international group,
and that Verisign's share is somewhat smaller.

* I've returned to the core question that I believe is of greatest interest
here: Which registrars have the largest market shares?  Prior answers to
this question have weighted all domains equally and have simply divided each
registrar's registration count by the total number of registered domains;
see, for example, the continued work of State of the Domain.  This is a
sensible way to begin, but since we ask about current registrar market share
in order to, in general, assess likely future market share, another
important factor to consider is likelihood of domain renewal.  With that in
mind, I've investigated a class of domains particularly likely to be
renewed -- all domains with at least one listing in Yahoo -- and have found
that, even for new additions to Yahoo, Verisign's market share remains
somewhat larger than suggested by a simple quotient of registration counts.

* I've added further charts and tables for those who are interested, and
I've further fleshed out the discussion and implications.

I look forward to further comments from GA members, and I hope to further
improve my work according to your suggestions.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/edelman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 5:48 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Research: Which domains do the Fortune 1000 use?
>
>
> From time to time, discussion on this list has turned to
> questions of registrar choice (whether for personal or
> organizational registrations) and of register financial viability
> going forwards.
>
> One data source that can be brought to bear on both these
> questions is a listing of registrars used by large corporations
> such as those on the Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000 lists.
> ...

- --
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: Tue, 28 May 2002 19:49:23 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Lynn to Retire in 2003; McLaughlin to Go Half-Time

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-27may02.htm

What a surprise...:-)
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: Tue, 28 May 2002 22:34:07 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Open and Transparent

Although not a frequent poster to the GA, I do try to monitor the traffic in
my free time. I would like to offer my personal insight on the current
discussion between Bret and Joe with regard to the scope and interpretation
of open and transparent. During my over three years of involvement in the
ICANN process the most defining moment I experienced occurred during Paul
Twomey's GAC presentation at the Berlin meeting, specifically his response
spanning 1 hour and 16 minutes to 1 hour and 22 minutes. See
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/berlin/archive/ His comments provide a
rather interesting backdrop to Bret and Joe's discussion.

I agree with many of the arguments raised by both Joe and Bret. Based upon
my personal experience I find myself somewhere in between both positions. As
Chair of the Registrar Constituency, I believe that the open and transparent
model by which the registrars have operated is far and a way superior to
some of the clandestine operations of other constituencies. However, the
open and transparent model has at times prevented us from engaging in
meaningful dialogue to resolve complex problems. As the constituency has
evolved, the Registrar Executive Committee has held weekly teleconferences.
Although the minutes from these meetings are made available to the
constituency, the conversations are not publicly available. In addition, the
registrar executive committee has created a mailing list which is not
achieved or publicly available. These non-publicly accessible communication
exchanges were not done to circumvent any open and transparent process. In
fact there is minimum discussion that takes here, the majority of
correspondence takes place on the general registrar mailing list which many
GA members monitor.

Based upon the recent litigation between BulkRegister and VRSN, and the
threat of other litigation involving other registrars I believe that the
open and transparent communication between registrars could be threatened.
It is with this insight that I understand the arguments put forward by Joe
and Paul Twomey over three years ago.

Turning to Bret's arguments, I must admit that on more than a few occasions
(see LA 99 and Melbourne 01 meetings) I have rather strenuously disagreed
with the positions put forth by ICANN and ICANN Staff. I share many people's
concern about the leap of faith we are collectively being asked to take in
connection with a yet uncertain and very powerful nominating committee.
However, the alternative of existing in the current model is in my opinion
not a viable alternative. The current bureaucratic nightmare has prevented
meaningful issues from being resolved in a timely manner to the detriment of
registration authorities and end users.

In the end, the comments of Paul Twomey over three years ago are rather
ominous, if ICANN fails there are bureaucrats eagerly waiting to step in and
take it over, and in that scenario how may of us will even be provided a
soap box to speak?

Just my two cents.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage

- --
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: Tue, 28 May 2002 21:45:16 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] To: [email-masked]

At 7:14 PM -0400 5/28/02, Joe Sims wrote:
>I would not assume that Andy's reports are accurate.  His perspective
>sometimes colors his perceptions of both words and actions.

Was it you or Louis Touton that stood up in an ICANN public meeting and
stated that the new Verisign/ICANN agreement was not negotiable, right
before Doc negotiateded some changes?

Pot kettle?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
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: Tue, 28 May 2002 21:53:03 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to Bret

At 5:28 PM -0700 5/28/02, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 07:44 PM 5/28/2002 -0400, Joe Sims wrote:
>>The logic is impossible for me to understand, so I apologize for even
>>attempting to engage on the subject. I should have known better (although
>>I really did not intend to be more liberal than Marie).
>
>Joe, if folks are more interested in debating than in getting ICANN's real
>work done, their logic is pretty straightforward.

Joe Sims and Dave Crocker posting to GA at the same time.

Something's going down. Everyone be on the alert.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
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: Tue, 28 May 2002 20:05:33 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to Bret

On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 09:53:03PM -0500, Andy Gardner wrote:
> At 5:28 PM -0700 5/28/02, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Joe Sims and Dave Crocker posting to GA at the same time.
> 
> Something's going down. Everyone be on the alert.

Boo!

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                          lonesome."  -- Mark Twain

- --
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: Tue, 28 May 2002 20:34:51 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to Joe

On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 05:55:02PM -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
> Joe Sims wrote:
> > No it would not.
> 
> Let's end the discussion here because we're not going to convince each
> other. It's simply incomprehensible to me that the greater ICANN community
> would not have benefitted from listening to the "several hours over two days
> of uninterrupted discussion" that the Board engaged in.
> Neither a paper nor
> the hour and half that we'll get in Bucharest will be an adequate
> substitute. The fact that some Board members are uncomfortable thinking out
> loud in public suggests to me that we need different Board members, not that
> ICANN should countenance important discussions behind closed doors. Open up
> all the Board meetings and allow those who are uncomfortable with that kind
> of process to decide not to serve. It's a big world. Surely ICANN can find
> 19 competent people willing to serve the public in public.

That is, you want politicians as board members. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                          lonesome."  -- Mark Twain

- --
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: Tue, 28 May 2002 21:01:07 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Election debate - Time Line Guide

PROPOSED TIME LINE for "Election Debate"

The following table sets out what is believed to be a reasonable guideline
as to the timing of the various events that need to take place in order to
take a vote of the whole Assembly on one or more issues related to the
Election Debate before ICANN's next Meeting in Bucharest, which commences
June 24th 2002.
What follows are not strict "rules" but rather a rough sketch of the rates
at which Members could expect things to happen. That is, the "duration" is
not carved in stone, but rather what one should normally expect to see, all
other things being equal. Since, in order to complete any Vote of the whole
Assembly within a 27 day time period, more than one process must take place
at once, this table provides deadlines for each of the concurrent
processes.

A General Discussion and investigation of issues commenced on or about Tues
May 28th http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg01725.html. This process
would normally run its course over a period of 7 days, ending Mon June 3rd.

An informal Onlist Poll may be held at any time to determine interest in
proposals put forward for further action, such as a vote of the whole
assembly on one or more motions.
duration: 3 days
suggested start date: Fri May 31st
end: Sun June 2nd

Submission and Debate on Proposal(s)
duration: 7 days
start: Fri May 31st
end: Thurs June 6th

Submission and Debate on text of Motion(s)/ including possible amendments
and/ or substitute Motion(s)
duration:7 days
start: Fri June 7th
end: Thurs June 13th

Informal onlist Poll(s) on amendments,
and/ or substitute motions
duration: 3 days
(optional at any time during Debate)

Deadline for Text of Motion(s) to be submitted with a list of 10 supporters
Fri June 14th

Vote of the whole Assembly (subject to Secretariat availability)
duration:7 days
start: Sat June 15th
end: Fri June 21st

Submit Final Report(Motion Text, Vote results and supporting documentation)
Mon June 24th

- --
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: Tue, 28 May 2002 21:15:21 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Open and Transparent

I have clipped much;
Theory is quite good but in contract interpretation we use common
meaning:

Open     Date: before 12th century
         1 : having no enclosing or confining barrier : accessible on
all or nearly                     all sides <cattle grazing on an open
range>

Transparent     Date: 15th century
            1 a (1) : having the property of transmitting light without
appreciable
                     scattering so that bodies lying beyond are seen
clearly

Now look to the articles and to the White and Green papers.  And then
note the
referral to bottoms up.  Joe Sims is engaging in sophistry, a standard
lawyer move when you do not have the facts.  His personal definitions of
words make no difference when ICANN has signed a contract.

If they had just used open, he may have an argument.  If they had just
used Transparent he may have had a point.  But when they used both
combined with bottoms up it sealed the deal.  But of course that
representation was how they got the contract, now to change is fraud. 
Dannys' arguments may seem a little too rigid, but not if it was based
upon that social contract that ICANN exists today, they did it not Danny
- - he is merely holding them to a promise.

Karls' lawsuit and Dannys' point, are part and parcel of the same
promise.  Even Brett argues to breach a promise.  These lines of
argument are morally and legally defective.

Sitting by and allowing this type of contract poste facto revisionism is
simply enabling ICANN to fail.  Shame on Don Evans and the DOC for
remaining quiet.

Sincerely,
Eric

"Michael D. Palage" wrote:

> Although not a frequent poster to the GA, I do try to monitor the traffic in
> my free time. I would like to offer my personal insight on the current
> discussion between Bret and Joe with regard to the scope and interpretation
> of open and transparent. During my over three years of involvement in the
> ICANN process the most defining moment I experienced occurred during Paul
> Twomey's GAC presentation at the Berlin meeting, specifically his response
> spanning 1 hour and 16 minutes to 1 hour and 22 minutes. See
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/berlin/archive/ His comments provide a
> rather interesting backdrop to Bret and Joe's discussion.
- --
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 #1240
*************************