Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1247
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, May 30 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1247

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

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 15:26:39 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] your comments

At 06:18 p.m. 29/05/2002 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:

>Someone should get incidents like this more into the public eye

The InternetNZ  Executive Director challenged the Board and the staff on 
the issue of using the IANA-function for arm-twisting during the public 
meeting in Montevideo.
It managed to raise some eyebrows with the press, but then Sept 11 
overshadowed ICANN minutiae completely.

- --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: Thu, 30 May 2002 01:10:24 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for vote on GA position on election of ICANN board members

[email-masked] (Wed 05/29/02 at 06:45 PM +0200):

> This suggestion would back-fire: It would deprive the board of all  
> the experience which is currently there.  Rather, I'd suggest that  
> the unelected (and, bad enough, also the elected) at large board 
> members should be replaced at the next opportunity.

good idea, thomas. when do you think there will be a next opportunity
to replace, say, kraaijenbrink and wilson?

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: Thu, 30 May 2002 21:13:44 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election debate - Time Line Guide

On Wed, 29 May 2002 20:42:58 -0400, Joanna Lane <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Thomas
>> Roessler
>> >PROPOSED TIME LINE for "Election Debate"
>>
>> Please stop this, Joanna.  All you are causing is confusion.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>
>Why do you have a problem with getting a calendar out and pencilling in some
>dates?

Because while I am sure you mean well and to be helpful you appear to
be trying to ursup the role of the GA Chair whose job it is to
schedule such things.

In my opinion it would be more helpful if you sent private e-mail to
Thomas suggesting a possible time-frame than posting publicly what
some may take to be the agreed time-frame.

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: Thu, 30 May 2002 21:45:39 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ccTLD "contributions" - was Re: [ga] your comments

On Wed, 29 May 2002 17:43:14 -0700 (PDT), Karl Auerbach
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>On Thu, 30 May 2002, DPF wrote:
>
>> ...  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!!!)
>
>I'd like to explore this "request for a donation".  On more than one
>occassion I have heard ccTLD people mention something like this.

The first year everyone got invoices which went down like a pork roast
at a bar mitzvah.  Despite this many paid something but noted it was a
donation as there was no contract of any sort as a basis for said
invoices.

SInce then has got better with invoices now being a pleasant letter
from the President and specific amounts being replaced with ranges or
a guideline formula.

We have paid IIRC pretty much the full amount requested the last
couple of times but as Steven Heath stated have now decided not to pay
an further due to dis satisfaction with issues such as ccTLD
contracts, at large representation, lack of consultation and the silly
games over IANA database.  We have approved handing the money over to
the proposed ccSO body which could then pass it on once things are
worked out.

>It would help me greatly to understand this if you happened to have a
>timeline, with attached documentation, showing who said/did what to whom
>at what time.

I will ask our staff to put this together.

>One of the reasons that I ask, apart from the potentially coercive
>aspects, is how to account for such "donations".  For example, a true
>"donation" is something made out of pure generosity and is not an advance
>payment or substitute for a past, present, or future debt.  

I believe they are "true donations".  They are made as an act of good
will and good faith because people want ICANN to succeed.  There is no
punishment or withdrawal of service for not paying.  Hell the service
you get having paid is so bad it couldn't actually get worse :-)

>True donations
>offset neither debt nor future payments, and they are not refundable.  On
>the other hand, one can slap the label "donation" or "contribution" onto
>something that is in reality an advance payment that will be used to
>reduce future payments.  

AFAIK no-one at ICANN is keeping track of donations asked for and
donations received (for each ccTLD) hence treating them as partial or
advance payments.  Again AFAIK each new year starts with a fresh
slate.

>And that raises questions of refundability if the
>foundation for those future payments not soon come into being.  I have
>found ICANN's accounting of these matters to be less than satisfactory.  
>On at least one occassion I have had to write to putative "contributors"
>to learn whether their understanding was consistent with that of ICANN's
>management.

I am not sure if ICANN treat donations from cTLDs not received as
creditors.  If they did that would be very silly of them.

DPF

PS - please note that while I am on the Council of InternetNZ I do not
speak for them and my comments on this matter are my opinions only
- --
[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: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:14:45 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] your comments

 Laying blame is certainly not a productive use of our time,                              
 but if we're going to go down that road, I'm more inclined to lay the fault              
 for not getting ICANN 'fully formed' at your doorstep.                                   

Suit yourself.  But you may remember that the Board was set to adopt an
election plan for 9 At Large Directors in Cairo, which would have called
for direct election of an 18-member AL council that would then have elected
9 AL Board members.  The global democrary advocates  killed this, because
it did not involve direct elections of the Board members themselves.  Go
back and read the CDT/Common Cause/Carter Center report, explaining why
this was unacceptable and an outrage to even consider.  Their position
(unlike that of those who opposed all elections but were willing to live
with this compromise) was "my way or else," and the fact that lots of other
people thought their way was unworkable was apparently irrelevant to them,
because they just knew they were on the side of right, truth and justice.
As it turns out, this turn of events was fortunate, since we have now seen
what a mess global on-line elections would be, but do you suppose there are
any second thoughts by those who let their unwillingness to compromise lead
them down a path to (from their perspective) total failure?  Just a
thought.

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

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

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:16:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] on using appropriate tools

Thomas, while you work on a proposal a new method of recording the views
of the Internet community of issues concerning ICANN, there is a rapid
process for reshaping ICANN into an unaccountable and undemocratic
institution with a very broad policy mandate.   It seems to me that *now*
is the time to use whatever tools are left to oppose the worst features of
that.  It seems to me that refusing to use those tools now is a strategic
effort to protect the ICANN board from effective criticism during the
period when they will attempt to persuade the world they have consensus
for thatwever is done in Bucharest.   What you propose below is to stop
the GA from having an effective voice in the current reform debate, which
is taking place right now.
     Jamie

PS... the deep seated hostility to the use of voting by the public, even
in cases where the votes have no binding legal significance, for anything
important in the reform process, is of course consistent with the "reform"
process proposals....

> Thinking a bit more about some of the recent discussions here, I
> arrive at the conclusion that a considerable part of the problems we
> are experiencing is caused by the use of an inappropriate tool:
> Votes like we are using them right now are _not_ the tool we
> _should_ be using in order to make declarations of the intent of the
> members of the GA.
>
>
> More precisely, a vote is an instrument by which some well-defined
> body comes up with a collective decision.  The accountability for   the
> outcome of the vote is collective; individual members are not   held
> accountable for their individual votes.  For this reason, votes  are
> held in secret. In particular, a vote deliberately withholds a
> considerable amount of information from the public.
>
> It is also bad to arbitrarily add new members to the voting registry
> for a particular vote: Suddenly, the body making the decision is no
> longer well-defined; the result of the vote ("body x says y") itself
> becomes ill-defined as a consequence.
>
> Such votes are an appropriate tool when the GA actually acts as a
> homogeneous body, that is, when it elects a chairman or
> representatives to task forces, or when it votes on its internal
> procedures: Votes are appropriate whenever the question at hand is  how
> the GA as a group of individuals can best organize its
> activities.
>
>
> Votes are, however, not appropriate when GA statements are made on
> substance.  There are several reasons for this.
>
> Most importantly, the GA is _not_ acting as a homogeneous body when
> it comes to substantial topics: We are a mix of constituency members
> and interested individuals, of stakeholders and slashdotters.  We   may
> even want to take into account outside support for substantial
> statements (Jamie tried this; similarly, it may be interesting to
> shop for support for a uniform deletions policy or certain transfer
> policies at nsihorrorstories.com).  What the resolutions discussed
> here are about is not a _decision_ within a homogeneous body, but a
> demonstration of support (and, possibly, objection!) from those who
> want to demonstrate that support (or objection).
>
> For such a demonstration, the deliberate loss of information which   is
> connected with the current voting mechanism is not desirable: An
> explicit list of supporters of a resolution makes a lot more sense
> than the apples-and-oranges statement that "the DNSO's GA has voted
> for xyz".  In fact, I'd even go a step further than just making the
> voting process transparent: Let's get rid of the voting registry and
> the complex apparatus we are using altogether, as far as substantive
> resolutions are concerned (as opposed to questions of the internal
> organization of the GA).
>
>
> So, here's my suggestion for how to deal with future resolutions:   Set
> up separate web archives where support and objection are
> collected.  The easiest way to do this is to have two separate mail
> addresses, like <resolution-[veryshorttitle][email-masked]> and
> <resolution-[veryshorttitle][email-masked]>.  Connect each of
> these addresses to a web archive.  Distribute a message like the
> following one widely (very rough draft), including to the members of
> the voting registry:
>
>
> 	If you support the above resolution, please send an e-mail
> 	message to <[email-masked]>; if you object, please
> 	send an e-mail message to <[email-masked]>.  If you
> 	want to explicitly record your abstention, send a message to
> 	<[email-masked]>.
>
> 	In your message, please indicate your name, and possible
> 	membership in a DNSO constituency.  Please use the following
> 	template:
>
> 	Name:
> 	Membership: {ga/ga-voting-registry/constituency/external}
>
> Define a deadline for the submission of these messages, and produce
> the final report when that deadline is over: Namely, the
> resolution's text, and the lists of supporters and objectors,
> including their kind of DNSO membership.
>
> To summarize, the process suggested has the following benefits over
> the current approach:
>
> - The resulting statement is well-defined.
> - The process is transparent and can be implemented with
>   considerably less effort than the voting process; in particular,  the
>   safeguards necessary to ensure the integrity of a secret vote are not
>   needed here.
> - The very concept of capture does not make any sense, since it is
>   reasonably transparent who does and says what.  In particular,  there
>   is no voting registry to be stuffed.
>
> Of course, one may argue that this approach is relying on the
> integrity of the Internet e-mail system too heavily; indeed, faking   a
> statement of support is as easy as faking an e-mail message.
>
> If this is a concern, the software used would have to be somewhat
> more complex: The software would have to send a message to the
> e-mail address given which contains the resolution's text and asks
> for confirmation.  The simplest approach to implement this is like
> this: For each incoming message at one of the -support, -object, or
> -abstain addresses, create a random unique secret string [from a
> well-defined and safe to handle set of characters].  Use that as the
> file name under which you temporarily store the message.  Demand   that
> confirmations be sent to ...-{support,object,abstain}-<magic>.  Have a
> mail bot listening at that address strip the magic out of   the
> address, and move the saved message into the archive.  After the  end
> of the vote, move unconfirmed messages into separate archives.
>
> Shouldn't be hard to do.
>
> (If you're unsure about the process I'm describing - it's the same
> thing which is commonly done to confirm mailing list subscriptions
> nowadays.)
>
>
> Comments?
> --
> 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

- -- 
James Love
http://www.cptech.org mailto:[email-masked]
mobile +1.202.361.3040

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

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

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:35:52 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] your comments

Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:

 the cctlds have been one of the supporters of the                                        
 ICANN project since its inception                                                        

It is certainly true that some ccTLDs have been very supportive, and it is
also true that many ccTLDs will say privately that they do not support the
more radical statements of their "leaders," but as far as I can tell, your
position has been that the cc's that you speak for will come into ICANN
only if ICANN agrees that they get to have a veto over any ICANN policies
that they don't care to follow.  We might be able to agree that all parties
could have perfomed better over the last years, and by that I mean all
parties -- the GAC, cc administrators, ICANN staff and Board, and
individual national governments.  But there is still a core issue:  do the
operators of these particular TLD registries have any obligation to the
global Internet community, in addition to their obvious responsibilities to
their local Internet community?  If they do, ICANN is the vehicle for
establishing policies that reflect that obligation to the global community.
This has been the position of the staff, and the Board, and the GAC, from
the beginning, and until this principle is accepted, it seems unlikely that
we will make much progress.  From your posting and its continuing criticism
of the GAC principles, I don't see much sign of progress.  Nevertheless, I
look forward to your upcoming meeting, and hope that it will help bring
closure to what has to date been an unproductive debate.

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

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

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:26:11 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] your comments

At 08:35 AM 5/30/2002 -0400, Joe Sims wrote:
>Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:
>
> 
>
>  the cctlds have been one of the supporters of 
> the
>  ICANN project since its 
> inception
> 
>

All the information I have read indicates there are NO cctlds who support 
the ICANN.

Please, Joe, provide us with a list of cctld ICANN supporters.

~k

- --
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 09:24:11 -0400
From: Patricio Poblete <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] your comments

Dear Joe,

Actually, we may agree more than you think. In Montevideo, the ccTLD
managers present issued a communiqué that said:

	"There is a carefully definable set of global issues which can
	be put through the SO to the ICANN policy making process.
        Each ccTLD is solely responsible for it's decision making except
        for that carefully defined list of global issues mentioned above,
        when ccTLDs agree to be bound by policies formed through the
        ICANN process."

So, it is recognized that there are global issues for which policies
should be formed through the ICANN process. Of course, we must work
on defining this set of global issues, and I trust we would be able
to do it if we started working on it.

Patricio Poblete
NIC Chile

On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 08:35:52AM -0400, Joe Sims wrote:
> Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:
> 
>                                                                                           
>  the cctlds have been one of the supporters of the                                        
>  ICANN project since its inception                                                        
>                                                                                           
> 
> 
> 
> It is certainly true that some ccTLDs have been very supportive, and it is
> also true that many ccTLDs will say privately that they do not support the
> more radical statements of their "leaders," but as far as I can tell, your
> position has been that the cc's that you speak for will come into ICANN
> only if ICANN agrees that they get to have a veto over any ICANN policies
> that they don't care to follow.  We might be able to agree that all parties
> could have perfomed better over the last years, and by that I mean all
> parties -- the GAC, cc administrators, ICANN staff and Board, and
> individual national governments.  But there is still a core issue:  do the
> operators of these particular TLD registries have any obligation to the
> global Internet community, in addition to their obvious responsibilities to
> their local Internet community?  If they do, ICANN is the vehicle for
> establishing policies that reflect that obligation to the global community.
> This has been the position of the staff, and the Board, and the GAC, from
> the beginning, and until this principle is accepted, it seems unlikely that
> we will make much progress.  From your posting and its continuing criticism
> of the GAC principles, I don't see much sign of progress.  Nevertheless, I
> look forward to your upcoming meeting, and hope that it will help bring
> closure to what has to date been an unproductive debate.
> 
> 
> 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: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:29:53 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] your comments

Indeed, having a public election of any type would greatly decrease the 
chances for big business to hand pick our elected directors:  I see your 
point.  It would be a disaster for the ICANN to have to include 
knowledgeable or experienced folks, better to have people so far up the 
corporate butt that they haven't got a clue about new technology or what it 
means to be a decent, fair person.

Good for you Joe.

~k

At 08:14 AM 5/30/2002 -0400, Joe Sims wrote:
> 
>
>  Laying blame is certainly not a productive use of our 
> time,
>  but if we're going to go down that road, I'm more inclined to lay the 
> fault
>  for not getting ICANN 'fully formed' at your 
> doorstep.
> 
>
> 
>
>
>
>Suit yourself.  But you may remember that the Board was set to adopt an
>election plan for 9 At Large Directors in Cairo, which would have called
>for direct election of an 18-member AL council that would then have elected
>9 AL Board members.  The global democrary advocates  killed this, because
>it did not involve direct elections of the Board members themselves.  Go
>back and read the CDT/Common Cause/Carter Center report, explaining why
>this was unacceptable and an outrage to even consider.  Their position
>(unlike that of those who opposed all elections but were willing to live
>with this compromise) was "my way or else," and the fact that lots of other
>people thought their way was unworkable was apparently irrelevant to them,
>because they just knew they were on the side of right, truth and justice.
>As it turns out, this turn of events was fortunate, since we have now seen
>what a mess global on-line elections would be, but do you suppose there are
>any second thoughts by those who let their unwillingness to compromise lead
>them down a path to (from their perspective) total failure?  Just a
>thought.
>
>
>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: Thu, 30 May 2002 09:34:12 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] your comments

Great.  Let's do it.

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

                                                                                                                   
                    Patricio Poblete                                                                               
                    <[email-masked]     To:     Joe Sims <[email-masked]>                                     
                    >                    cc:     [email-masked], [email-masked]                            
                                         Subject:     Re: [ga] your comments                                       
                                                                                                                   
                    05/30/02 09:24                                                                                 
                    AM                                                                                             
                    Please respond                                                                                 
                    to ppoblete                                                                                    

Dear Joe,

Actually, we may agree more than you think. In Montevideo, the ccTLD
managers present issued a communiqué that said:

           "There is a carefully definable set of global issues which can
           be put through the SO to the ICANN policy making process.
        Each ccTLD is solely responsible for it's decision making except
        for that carefully defined list of global issues mentioned above,
        when ccTLDs agree to be bound by policies formed through the
        ICANN process."

So, it is recognized that there are global issues for which policies
should be formed through the ICANN process. Of course, we must work
on defining this set of global issues, and I trust we would be able
to do it if we started working on it.

Patricio Poblete
NIC Chile

>
>

- --
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 09:43:08 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] your comments

[email-masked] (Thu 05/30/02 at 08:14 AM -0400):

> 9 AL Board members.  The global democrary advocates  killed this, because
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

heads up, kids: this is ICANN's new dirty word. 

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: Thu, 30 May 2002 09:40:51 -0400
From: Patricio Poblete <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] your comments

On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 06:52:06AM +1200, DPF wrote:
> 
> 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.

We may have been lucky, but in the course of the last year NIC Chile
has requested and obtained changes for our street address and telephones,
and also for name servers. The last change is documented in

	http://www.wwtld.org/tracking_iana_requests.html

and took 15 days. The issue of a contract was never mentioned by ICANN.

Patricio Poblete
NIC Chile
- --
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 11:41:27 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] DNSO Reform:  Process Issues

Seven months ago the Transfers Task Force was formed.  It was supposed to be 
a "fast track review".  One would expect a tremendous amount of discussion on 
the part of TF members to quickly resolve a vexing issue... 

Total list comments in 7 months by each current Transfers TF member (chair 
excluded) --

0 -- Erick Iriarte
1 -- Tony Holmes
1 -- David Safran
1 -- Sloan Gaon
2 -- Mark McFadden
2 -- Nick Wood
2 -- Dan Steinburg
2 -- James Love
3 -- Grant Forsythe
4 -- Elixabeth Porteneuve
4 -- Rick Shera
4 -- Christine Russo
40 - Ross Rader

What does this "fast track" performance tell us?  Obviously, we have a great 
number of members that have no stake or interest at all in the outcome of 
these discussions that inevitably contribute very very little.  One TF member 
has candidly admitted that "I was more or less put on this task force by 
others", and has apologized for "not
being a very good task force member".

The Task Force process is a failure.  

Soon we will receive a report from the Chair of this group that will be 
couched in language like "the TF is considering, is evaluating, is gathering 
input, is discussing..."  

The truth is that there are no "discussions" between TF members.  There has 
been no evaluation of the registrars draft transfer protocol, there has been 
no "discussion" on the broad topic of deletes, there has been no "dialogue" 
on apparent authority or express authorization.

Those that have a major stake in the issue that are allowed to participate 
(such as the registrar community) do their best to contribute in a meaningful 
fashion.  Those that have the greatest stake in the outcome (registrants) are 
not allowed to have representatives, and are told by the Chair that "It is 
the view of the TF that registrants are also represented in the 
constituencies and GA".  That's not much comfort when constituency and GA 
reps contribute almost nothing to the process.  

Most of us want an efficient organization.  Stacking a Task Force with 
appointees that have no real interest in participating just so that the claim 
can be made that all constituencies are involved is a poor way to get work 
done.  

The gTLD constituency has put forth the argument that policy-recommending 
bodies should involve primarily those that are significantly affected by the 
outcome of such decision-making.  There is merit in their viewpoint.  This 
Transfers TF well illustrates the need for true registrant representation, 
and the ideal mix to attack the problem of deletes/transfers would have been 
a joint working group between a registrar and a registrant constituency.  
Unfortunately, we have no registrant constituency within the DNSO, and this 
cripples forward progress.

As the Board considers reform propositions,  please remember that the Board 
may create new Constituencies on its own motion, if it determines that such 
action would serve the purposes of the Corporation.

I ask you to create a Registrants Constituency on your own motion.

  
- --
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 12:40:28 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Reform:  Process Issues

> The truth is that there are no "discussions" between TF members.  There
has
> been no evaluation of the registrars draft transfer protocol, there has
been
> no "discussion" on the broad topic of deletes, there has been no
"dialogue"
> on apparent authority or express authorization.

Inaccurate - there have been a number of conference calls and inter-member
exchanges that are obviously not reflected in the mailing list archives.

- -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: Thu, 30 May 2002 13:02:05 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Reform:  Process Issues

Ross, 

I am willing to be enlightened.  Other than the last two calls that were 
specific to WLS, how many conference calls have there been in the last seven 
months?  

Just how many months should it take to get the job done?  How many more 
months do you require to produce the "comprehensive review" that was 
requested by the Board?  The TF is still planning to release a "survey" that 
will again add several more months to the process, and we all know that the 
WHOIS survey, for example, has already taken a full year's worth of time to 
process.  When, if ever, do you expect to have recommendations ready?  When 
will there be a public comment period provided?  

Is there any timetable anywhere agreed upon by the members of the TF?  

Frankly, I'm getting sickened by the lack of any apparent progress.  
Registrants continue to be screwed by the abusive transfer practices of 
certain registrars while this TF plods along at a snail's pace.

- --
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 13:12:54 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Reform:  Process Issues

[email-masked] wrote:

>Seven months ago the Transfers Task Force was formed.  It was supposed to be 
>a "fast track review".  One would expect a tremendous amount of discussion on 
>the part of TF members to quickly resolve a vexing issue... 
>
>Total list comments in 7 months by each current Transfers TF member (chair 
>excluded) --
>
>0 -- Erick Iriarte
>1 -- Tony Holmes
>1 -- David Safran
>1 -- Sloan Gaon
>2 -- Mark McFadden
>2 -- Nick Wood
>2 -- Dan Steinburg
>2 -- James Love
>3 -- Grant Forsythe
>4 -- Elixabeth Porteneuve
>4 -- Rick Shera
>4 -- Christine Russo
>40 - Ross Rader
>
Shame on all of you.  What a disgrace.  

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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 #1247
*************************