Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1244
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, May 29 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1244

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:54:38 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf minutes May 14, 2002

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]]

DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 14 May 2002 - minutes

14 May 2002.
Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020502.NCteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc         ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Oscar Robles/
Elisabeth Porteneuve
Elisabeth Porteneuve   ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay     ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Elisabeth
Porteneuve

Philip Sheppard        Business
Marilyn Cade           Business
Grant Forsyth          Business
Greg Ruth              ISPCP
Antonio Harris         ISPCP
Tony Holmes            ISPCP absent, apologies proxy to Tony Harris
Philipp Grabensee      Registrars absent, apologies, proxy to Ken Stubbs
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars
Roger Cochetti         gTLD
Richard Tindal         gTLD  absent, apologies,
Cary Karp              gTLD
Ellen Shankman         IP
Laurence Djolakian     IP
J. Scott Evans         IP
Harold Feld            NCDNH
Chun Eung Hwi          NCDNH absent, apologies,
Erick Iriate           NCDNH absent, apologies,

14 Names Council Members

Glen de Saint Géry     NC Secretary
Philippe Renaut      MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat
MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020514.NCteleconf.mp3
Quorum present at 15:10 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during
summer time in the northern hemisphere).
Philip Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference.
Approval of the Agenda
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020514.NCteleconf-agenda.html

Ken Stubbs proposed sending get well wishes to Peter de Blanc on behalf of
the
Names Council.
Ken Stubbs sugested that timely arrangements shoud be made for an archived
recording of the Names Council meeting in Bucharest.
A call for attendance at the Bucharest meeting revealed that there would be
at
least 12 NC members present.

The agenda was approved.
Item 1. Summary of last meetings:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020418.NCteleconf-minutes.html
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020424.NC-minutesrevised.html
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020502.NCteleconf-minutes.html
Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the summaries, seconded by Cary Karp.
The motion was carried unanimously .
Decision 1: Motion adopted.

J. Scott Evans, on behalf of the Intellectual Property Constituency,
requested
that a footnote be added under the heading:
Policy Development Bodies
Recommendations 9, 10, 11, 12,
see the IPC submission:
http://www.dnso.org/temp/20020429.IPCsubmission-Reform.htmlC.htm
The IPC sees these Bodies as Issue Identification Bodies and as such the IPC
disagrees on the function of these bodies
Elisabeth Porteneuve commented on the wording in:
Recommendation 3 - Functions
New wording:
ICANN's functions should not be extended at this time beyond what is
outlined in
the note "What ICANN Does", subject to the distinct roles of IANA and ICANN
being mainained.

commenting that IANA functions have a separate Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU)
between the US. Government and ICANN.
The wording does not imply any change.

Agenda item 2: NC Recommendations18 - 24 in v9.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020503.Response-Reform-v9.html

Recommendation18.
Ph. Sheppard explained that the draft wording had come from Thomas
Roessler's
input.

Roger Cochetti reminded the group that the gTLD Registry Constituency is on
record as not supporting this recommendation.
Advisory bodies, or whatever they are called, dealing with gTLDs should be
made
up of operators, Registrars and Registries. This was also a recommendation
of
the AtLarge study group.

Discussion showed that there are similarities and differences with ccTLDs
and
gTLDs.
Generic ccTLDS that take on the character of gTLDs have a global impact.
Issues are similar but policies are different.
Common interests of ccTLDs and gTLDs should be identified.
ICANN cannot develop policy issues binding on ccTLDs.
Recommendation is defining a minimum not a maximum of constituencies.
Non- commercial organisations should be specified rather than non-commercila
interests.
To Internet service providers, connectivity should be added.

Concern was expressed that the Names Council position was not recommending
anything beyond the status quo, however, "Who" remains at the table remains
broadly the same, but "What" is where things should be changed.

New wording:
The stakeholders in the gTLD policy development body should be at minimum
the
following constituencies: Business users, intellectual property interests,
gTLD
Registries, Registrars, non-commercial organisations, internet service and
connectivity providers.

The recommendation was accepted by all except the gTLD Registrar
constituency
and the Non-Commercial constituency said that their vote depended on the
language in Recommendations 19 - 21.

Recommendation 19
Ph. Sheppard added a concern mentioned earlier by the Non-Commercial
constituency,
Other stakeholders, such as individual domain name holders,
A distinction should be made between permanent and temporary
constituency/forums.
New constituencies should form according to Names Council criteria.
Temporary constituency could form round a specific issue.
There was support for the idea of restructuring the GA and make it a place
for
issue fora.

New wording:
Recommendation 19 - Other stakeholders.
Other stakeholders, such as individual domain name holders, could be added
subject to the requirements of the Names Council "Criteria for establishing
new
DNSO constituencies" as set out in the NC rules of procedure at
www.dnso.org.

Recommendation 19: Accepted by all

Recommendation 20
Thomas Roessler suggested being more explicit and adding 3 representatives
per
stakeholder/ constituency is optimal.
Marilyn Cade felt that the structure of the body should be dealt with first.
Ken Stubbs said that guidelines for electing this body should be considered
before a specific number.
Roger Cochetti commented that the recommendations appeared to be a Names
Council
clone
Structure, function, process should be part of the recommendation and in
function and process it will be different.
Tony Harris reminded the group that the ISCPC prefers a model on the curent
lines of the current DNSO and supports the creating of Supporting
Organisations
for the ccTLD and the AtLarge.
Ken Stubbs hoped that the idea, whether called the NC or Policy Council,
having
groups with common interests and bringing them into contact with groups
affected
by the policy would be explored.
Recommendation 20: Accepted by all

Recommendation 21 - Public Consultation
Deffered to the end to be discussed with the GA and public fora.

Recommendation 22
Ph. Sheppard addressed this stating that the wording also captured some of
the
concerns earlier expressed by Ken Stubbs. The present Task Forces have
merit,
outside expertise could be called upon and the groups would thus vary in
size
but have to be balanced and make recommendations to the main body.

Marilyn Cade suggested that calling in outside expertise or specific help
should
be emphasied, which was echoed by Harold Feld who added that there should be
a
formal consultation process with the constituencies in the early feedback
stage.

Further discussion pointed out the following issues:
- - staff support,
- - a core of drafters
- - prior to submitting the report to the NC, the Task Forces should consult
with
and take input from the individual constituencies.
- - Ken Stubbs strongly emphasised that in any deliberating process timelines
are
very important to efficiency.

New wording:
Recommendation 22 - working practice
The gTLD policy development body should operate by establishing small,
specialist working groups with realistic timelines. These working groups may
vary in size and composition depending on the issue and could include
outside
expertise. The working groups would consult with constituencies/stakeholders
and
then make final recommendations to the Council or similar body of the gTLD
policy development body.

Recommendation 22 : Accepted by all.

Recommendation 23 - Board Liaison
Ph. Sheppard said that Board involvement in each of these bodies was an idea
that came from the last meeting.
J. Scott Evans who initiated the idea, elaborated by saying that Board
Members
should be assigned to liaise with the various policy developing bodies,
monitor
the process and guide the Board in understanding how the policy was
developed.

New wording:
Recommendation 23 - Board liaison
To ensure Board level engagement in the policy development process one or
more
Board members should be assigned as a liaison to each policy development
body.

Recommendation 23: Accepted by All

Recommendation 24
Philip Sheppard addressed the recommendation saying it tried to capture the
idea
of an interim decision when time is critical, and Thomas Roessler suggested
defining "interim" by a maximum of 6 months.

In the discussion the Redemption paper was given as an example of where a
quick
decision had to be made.
In time critical situations, the Board should be able to direct staff to
make a
recommendation, test out the recommendation with the Policy Development Body
(PDB), rather than expecting the PDB to do the work.
Businesses could not be expected to act on interim decisions so this was
acceptable.

New wording:

Recommendation 24 - extremis
Ordinarily all policy development should be via the policy development
bodies
and subject to recommendation 10 in terms of obligation on the Board. In
extremis when externalities dictate, the Board should be able to direct
ICANN
staff to draft a policy for fast-track consideration (not to exceed 60 days)
by
the policy development bodies.

Recommendation 24: Accepted by All

Recommendation 21
Philip Sheppard addressed the recommendation, adding Thomas Roessler's
contributions.
In addition to the General Assembly, the idea of fora was added and the
distinction was made between genuine stakeholders who should self organise
and
be part of the process, making the General Assembly a genuine assemblty of
all
those stakeholders and having in addition an effective means of consultation
on
proposed policies whereby those individuals not part of the stakeholders can
ordinarily participate
Suggested wording
The General Assembly:
The gTLD policy development body should have a general assembly whose prime
role
is to provide a forum for broad inter-constituency exchange. Consequently
membership should be limited to the agreed stakeholders who are represented
in
the policy development body.

Recommendation accepted by all.

Discussion on public consultation pointed out that:
Public consultation should be clearly defined, it is always costly and can
be
fundamental as it educates people. However care should be taken that values
are
not created through public consultation as it tends to become a dumping
ground
for personal issues that minimise the issue at stake.
Ken Stubbs gave the example of public consultation in Domain Name Transfers
which should not focus on alternate roots.
A time limit is important without fixing it definitely.

New wording:

Public Consultation:
There should be public consultation on proposed new policy within strict
time
limits, typically not to exceed 30 days. Such consultation should serve as
the
channel by which individuals and parties not fitting into the stakeholders/
constituency scheme participate in policy-making. Fora of self-declared
interested parties should be specifically requested for input during such
consultation. The necessary financial and human resources will need to be
made
available for public consultation.
Accepted by everybody.

AOB - none
Philip Sheppard concluded saying that he would formally submit a report as
edited on this call. He confirmed the next teleconference on May 29, 2002 at
15:00 Paris time.

1.NC comments on evoluion and Reform Committee working paper on ICANN's
structure and the nominating committee concept:
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/working-paper-structure-09may02.
html

2. Function and process on Recommendation 20
3. Report on Wait List Service (WLS) - Marilyn Cade
The teleconference ended at 17:15
Next NC teleconference May 29 at 15:00 Paris time, 13:00 UTC.
See all past agendas and minutes at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/2002calendardnso.html
and calendar of the NC meetings at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-calendar.html

 Information from:
      © DNSO Names Council

- --
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 19:26:34 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] apologies for multple sending of minutes

[To: [email-masked]]

I do apologise for the multiple sending of the NC teleconf minutes.  It was
not at all intentional.

Thank you.

DNSO Secretariat

- --
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 14:06:13 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] your comments

joe--

if you please, we've been hearing the ICANN-is-an-'experiment' song
and dance for years now. when it comes down on regland or snapnames,
there's nothing 'experimental' and no one claims there is; but when
it comes to shutting down open public input processes, you can bare-
ly hear yourself think over the din of people chanting 'experiment.'

and, if you please, we've been hearing the black-and-white song and
dance for years now. the charge is liberally applied to ICANN's cri-
tics, but never to boardsquatters like hans. 

and, if you please, we've been hearing the 'unprecedented' song and
dance for years now. i can only giggle at the idea of a lawyer argu-
ing that something is unprecedented becauee the logic of the law is,
itself, a constant search for (and application of) precedents. when
ICANN steps into the courtroom with karl, JDRP will *most assuredly
not* be babbling about lack of precedent or 'uniqueness.'

there's damn little recognition of the ideas in lynn's proposal for
the same reason that, say, the catholic church doesn't devote scads
of time churning out a summa on every nano-aspect of satan's wiles--
people have more positive goals. if very few people have spent much
time on lynn's outpourings, that in itself is an eloquent statement
about their value. 

the 'pisanty committee'? heh. 

cheers,
t

[email-masked] (Wed 05/29/02 at 10:58 AM -0400):

> I'm with you.  While I know that many will not believe this, this is what
> most of us are actually trying to do.  I notice that there was damn little
> recognition of the ideas in Stuart's paper that sought to open up the
> process more than it is now.  Today, many people marginalize themselves by
> taking a black or white approach -- e.g., direct elections are the only
> acceptable way to be accountable.  The fact is that this is a unique
> animal, trying to do things in a way that has no direct model.  As such, it
> requires more experimentation, more trials and errors, and more
> understanding of the frankly experimental nature of the effort.  So I would
> encourage the application of the principles you espouse in responding to
> whatever comes out of the Pisanty Committee later this week, and maybe we
> can make progress.
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Wed, 29 May 2002 20:15:43 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: TechDaily, Touton on GA vote

>The 
[Long Island ICANN Board]
>meeting occurred shortly after a key vote last week of the 
>general assembly of ICANN's Domain Name Supporting Organization, 
>which serves as a forum for ICANN stakeholders to discuss potential 
>policies. The assembly voted to ask the Commerce Department to 
>replace ICANN and re-bid the contract to manage the Internet's 
>domain-name system. In September, Commerce's National 
>Telecommunications and Information Administration is expected to 
>consider renewing its contract with ICANN. ICANN general counsel 
>Louis Touton said it is unclear what the general assembly's vote 
>actually means, calling it a "straw poll" of different groups that 
>have an interest in domain-name issues but without any real 
>authority. He added that as the general assembly airs concerns or 
>preferences for the restructuring process, "the board is working 
>very hard to look at everybody's input." 

 From National Journal's Technology Daily (subscribers only),
as sent by James Love to random-bits
(http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2002-May/000861.html)

/// Alexander (approaching posting limit for today)

- --
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 20:24:13 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [off-list] Re: [atlarge-discuss] role of voting

Don't the words "off-list" in a subject header mean anything to you, 
Richard?  What you are replying to in public here was a _private_  
reply to a message from a different mailing list. Please keep  
private discussions private in the future.

On 2002-05-29 17:47:30 +0100, Richard Henderson wrote:

>In a free society, anyone can release information, points of view, 
>whatever they darned well like to the press - and they are not  
>obliged to consult anyone else at all. Why should they? If an  
>individual thinks it's helpful to tell someone else (like you)  
>that's THEIR business.

>I often issue press releases. Why would I want to inform you 
>first?

Where did I say that I expect to be _consulted_?  Where did I say 
that I want to be informed _first_?  

The one thing I have asked James for (and I actually believe that he 
and I don't even disagree about this any more) is a _copy_ of any  
_press_ _releases_ he may make _concerning_ _the_ _GA_ vote.  

I don't want to know what he talks in private background talks.  I 
don't want to know what he tells individual reporters.  

However, when a press release concerning the GA goes out to a whole  
bunch of journalists, I'd like to have a little advance warning 
before these journalists start grilling me with their questions. 
It's that simple.

(As an alternative, one could also send a copy of such press  
releases to the GA mailing list - courtesy would dictate that  
anyway.)

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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: Wed, 29 May 2002 14:24:17 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] your comments

Why I bother to react to your nonsense is a mystery to me; must be some
deep psychological thing.  But I'll take one last (I promise!) try:

1.  Lots of people have spent lots of time reacting to Lynn's paper.
Indeed, it is absolutely clear that the vast majority of people involved in
the ICANN process agreed with its diagnosis of problems almost entirely,
while there was lots more debate and disagreement on the prescription for
solutions.  Where we got relatively little reaction was from the byfields
and similar professional ICANN critics, who have lots of time to carp and
either an unwillingness or an inability to contribute in any productive way
to the debate.
2.  You can argue with the facts all you want, but they are still facts.
If ICANN was fully formed and funded, and then performed badly, you would
have a good case for doing something different.  But since it has not had
either feature, in large part because of efforts by you and your
compatriots  to try to force down the rest of the world's throats your view
of ICANN as world government, then there is hardly a case for ICANN having
failed since it has never really ever been fully formed and operational.
3.  If you have any positive goals, I would be happy to hear of them.  I
have seen no evidence to date.

Joe Sims

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

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 14:31:35 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] your comments

danny,

At the risk of opening up several cans of worms, is there evidence to
support the 'no longer' attribute? 

I think we have been struggling since 1998 for evidence that the board
as a whole ever did.

My suggestion to all would be to not bother looking for something you
know you aren't going to find.
If you choose to work within ICANN, do so with open eyes and seek to
make a difference within the 'closed ' shop.

If you choose to vote for the 'broom' approach and a clean-sweep start
over with a rebid, then again, don't bother with the current mess except
to document it for purposes of the rebid.

Now...I've been thinking along these lines since 1998 and I have always
felt there is nothing wrong with maintaining these parallel tracks.  So
that is where I'm coming from.  Work to better things a small step at a
time....and when it becomes clear to enough people that change is better
than inertia, ...well...

This kinda parallels the vote we had in the GA.  People got a chance to
state that they want change from within and a rebid.  It's something
done in the legal profession all the time...you have a fall-back
position so not all  your eggs are in one basket, and you can do
'something' constructive all the time.

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Joe writes:  Today, many people marginalize themselves by taking a black or
> white approach -- e.g., direct elections are the only acceptable way to be
> accountable.
> 
> With all due respect, the question that one might ask is the following:
> After having budgeted $450,000 for an At-Large study, and after having been
> told by those charged with completing the year-long study (this included the
> former Chairman of ICANN), that "an At-Large membership registration and
> election process can be developed that meets standards of integrity, fairness
> and affordability" ( http://www.atlargestudy.org/final_report.shtml ), why
> has the Board not accepted the recommendations of its own Blue-Ribbon panel
> that reflects the consensus view of the community?
> 
> Aren't we a consensus-based organization?  Do we now have a Board that no
> longer respects consensus?
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Wed, 29 May 2002 13:46:18 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] New .USA Website - Inkahoots

Just another example of content on .USA:  http://Band.USA

- ----
AGN Domain Name Services : http://www.adns.net
Censorship-Free GA list : http://dns-o.org/mailman/listinfo/ga

- --
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 19:59:24 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] your comments

- --=======28BD3063=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-19C419A5; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Joe,
If you truly want to make something out of it, why not just to list your 
priorities, one step at a time. Then to try to address them. Dont keep 
talking about DNS stability nor about the ICANN mission. There are 
controversies enough on this. Or start with the basics: the IP addressing 
stability.

Just tell:
- - we want to manage an Excel table keeper
- - we want to administer the world
- - we want to establish a stable committee for the decades to come
- - we want to serve the public
- - we want to make the structure to survive
- - we want to ....

That we can help and discover/correct the flaws.

When we/you know what we want, we may work on conflict priorities, then 
propose, then compare the propositions. Otherwise, I are you not afraid it 
is pure wasted time and money?

In a nutshell, don't you feel that what we realy need is a clear minded 
boss, an organizer? Is the guy who organized the LA Olympic Games still in 
business?
jfc

On 16:58 29/05/02, Joe Sims said:
>I'm with you.  While I know that many will not believe this, this is what
>most of us are actually trying to do.  I notice that there was damn little
>recognition of the ideas in Stuart's paper that sought to open up the
>process more than it is now.  Today, many people marginalize themselves by
>taking a black or white approach -- e.g., direct elections are the only
>acceptable way to be accountable.  The fact is that this is a unique
>animal, trying to do things in a way that has no direct model.  As such, it
>requires more experimentation, more trials and errors, and more
>understanding of the frankly experimental nature of the effort.  So I would
>encourage the application of the principles you espouse in responding to
>whatever comes out of the Pisanty Committee later this week, and maybe we
>can make progress.
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>--
>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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming 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

- --=======28BD3063=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-19C419A5
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

- --=======28BD3063=======--

- --
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: Thu, 30 May 2002 06:52:06 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] your comments

On Wed, 29 May 2002 14:24:17 -0400, "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>2.  You can argue with the facts all you want, but they are still facts.
>If ICANN was fully formed and funded, and then performed badly, you would
>have a good case for doing something different.  But since it has not had
>either feature, in large part because of efforts by you and your
>compatriots  to try to force down the rest of the world's throats your view
>of ICANN as world government, then there is hardly a case for ICANN having
>failed since it has never really ever been fully formed and operational.

So any perceived failure on the part of ICANN is the fault of its
critics and not the fault of the Board or its staff????

With respect Mr Sims this is hardly a balanced view.  In areas where
ICANN has clearly failed such as ccTLD contracts this is almost
entirely due to a blundering strategic approach by the staff who have
tried to almost blackmail ccTLDs rather than negotiate with them.

As an example of how stupid and petty this is, the .nz ccTLD manager
moved buildings well over a year ago.  ICANN *refuse* to update our
address in the IANA database until InternetNZ sign a contract with
them so the result is official mail from ICANN (including their
request for a donation to be made as a good faith gesture!!!) goes to
a near empty building on the other side of town.

Now this level of idiocy is not going to make .nz sign a contract with
ICANN.  It is however going to greatly reduce the chance of any "good
faith donations" continuing to be made.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 21:51:28 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion process rules -- DRAFT 0.1

- --=======71C35F0=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-19C419A5; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Alexander,
I am afraid you missed my point. I will rephrase it with an example:

1. one motion to disband the ccTLDs got 1.5% support, not discussed.
2. one motion is proposed on iDNs only by VRSN. It is supported by 4% and 
discussed.
3. during its discussion came the point on iDNs and ccTLDs.
4. the motion to disband the ccTLDs comes back because they are not needed 
for iDNs
5. a motion comes to say that ccTLDs should also support iDNs
     IMHO it will get easily a 4% support even coming later.
     - because it is comparable subject: the debate will have risen the 
attention
     - people are no fool and can understand what is of interest
     - many people will want to vote both
6. the motion to disband the ccTLDs gets 2% and is accepted
7. a motion of compromise is proposed and gets 2%
8. The first motion gets 55%, the second motion gets 45%, the third motion 
gets 51%  and the last one 65%
     - some people will say the third was history
     - others will say that the second was disruptive and killed the second.
     - others will say that the third was not really backed as the first 
and second and was a last minute no value vote.

So, I say every motion must get the same number of support.

Now the number of votes. The delay makes the number of vote reduced. To 
find the support for a new vote on a similar matte... I doubt you can 
easily. If you can it means that you will get the vote no matter what.

> >Also, having an initially less supported motion will lead to consider it 
> is a lower grade motion, a political bias. So it would be a disservice to 
> the alternate motion and would not help its introduction.
>
>I don't think this would happen. Look at people who have been elected as 
>ICANN Directors: The number of endorsements they have received before the 
>elections does not play much of a role.

This is point in in my favor!

One needs 10 endorsements. Last time, I got twice more than the others and 
true this was forgotten (happily since I was there only to make sure Abril 
i Abril was elected).

But let me know if this would have been accepted if previous Directors only 
needed 5 endorsements ... and Amadeu had only got 6 seconds...

jfc

- --=======71C35F0=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-19C419A5
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

- --=======71C35F0=======--

- --
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 13:48:33 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New .USA Website - Inkahoots

Spam spam spam.

Wednesday, May 29, 2002, 11:46:18 AM, John Palmer wrote:

> Just another example of content on .USA:  http://[SPAMMEDURLREMOVED]

> ----
> AGN Domain Name Services : http://[SPAMMEDURLREMOVED]
> Censorship-Free GA list : http://[SPAMMEDURLREMOVED]

- -- 
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: Wed, 29 May 2002 14:16:59 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion]]]]

Tuesday, May 28, 2002, 11:06:47 AM, todd glassey wrote:

> The problem is that the domain is the IP of the end user and the registrar

Wrong.  Try again.

The domain name is a service, contracted for between the registrant
and the registrar and registry.

- -- 
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: Wed, 29 May 2002 17:23:43 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] No support for Nominating Committee

As some of you are aware, the ISPs came out with a strong statement that 
trashed the idea of a Nominating Committee:

The ISPCP is opposed to the introduction of a Nominating Committee and 
questions whether such a scheme could ever fulfill the requirements of 
openness and transparency required to gain the support and trust of the ICANN 
community.  The ICANN initial board was elected by a "nominating committee" 
(albeit one person), and, aside from ignoring geographic diversity in its 
nominees, this procedure was the cause of heated debates and criticism within 
significant sectors of the stakeholder community for quite some time.  
http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/general/pdf00017.pdf

Members of the GA should similarly make their views known on this topic.

- --
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 #1244
*************************