Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #125
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, August 24 2000          Volume 01 : Number 125

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

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:14:29 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] List rules

At 12:39 AM 8/22/00 -0700, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>The recent messages from two of our members reminded me that we need to get 
>a formal vote according to the approved voting rules on the list rules.
>
>I would like the GA to consider adopting the current rules, with the 
>following changes:
>
>- There are 3 list monitors, not one. Any two of them can take action.
>- The list monitors are elected by the GA electorate using Instant Runoff 
>Voting.
>[snip]

	Not to make trouble, but . . . 

	I'm a big fan of IRV for elections of a *single* candidate.  Its utility
is a lot less clear when one is electing multiple candidates in a single
vote, as the excellent discussion in
<http://www.aec.gov.au/pubs/electoral_systems.htm#majoritorian> makes
plain.  In a context like this, any number of simpler systems, including
approval voting, would work adequately.  (Approval voting is what we do
when the ga nominates candidates for ga chair or ICANN director -- every ga
member gets to endorse as many candidates as he likes.  Instead of passing
the resulting list to the NC, though, we would just take the three people
with the most endorsements.)

	I'm leaving to one side the question of whether we want to have list
monitors at all.  Nor is it clear to me that more than three people will
actually want to *run*, in a contested election, for that job -- my
suspicion is that in the typical case, the chair will talk three reluctant
people into it, and those three will run uncontested in a pro forma election.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[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, 23 Aug 2000 11:23:25 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] List rules

At 12:14 PM 8/23/00 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

The proper way to do this is have the list moderator and two others 
(usually appointed by the list owner). The goal is to have both protection 
for the list moderator and an independent review in all complaint decisions.

Jon, you make a very good point. It is definitely *NOT* the right way to go 
to run an election campaign to grant authority to 3 list Nazi's.

>At 12:39 AM 8/22/00 -0700, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> >The recent messages from two of our members reminded me that we need to get
> >a formal vote according to the approved voting rules on the list rules.
> >
> >I would like the GA to consider adopting the current rules, with the
> >following changes:
> >
> >- There are 3 list monitors, not one. Any two of them can take action.
> >- The list monitors are elected by the GA electorate using Instant Runoff
> >Voting.
> >[snip]
>
>         Not to make trouble, but . . .
>
>         I'm a big fan of IRV for elections of a *single* candidate.  Its 
> utility
>is a lot less clear when one is electing multiple candidates in a single
>vote, as the excellent discussion in
><http://www.aec.gov.au/pubs/electoral_systems.htm#majoritorian> makes
>plain.  In a context like this, any number of simpler systems, including
>approval voting, would work adequately.  (Approval voting is what we do
>when the ga nominates candidates for ga chair or ICANN director -- every ga
>member gets to endorse as many candidates as he likes.  Instead of passing
>the resulting list to the NC, though, we would just take the three people
>with the most endorsements.)
>
>         I'm leaving to one side the question of whether we want to have list
>monitors at all.  Nor is it clear to me that more than three people will
>actually want to *run*, in a contested election, for that job -- my
>suspicion is that in the typical case, the chair will talk three reluctant
>people into it, and those three will run uncontested in a pro forma election.
>
>Jon
>
>Jonathan Weinberg
>[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

Best Regards,

Simon

- --
"You're all a bunch of bloody loonies." - Bill Oddie

- --
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, 23 Aug 2000 20:58:39 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: DNS/ICANN understanding

At 15:41 23/08/2000 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>Dear Dave,
>
>1. Candidate filtering
>I thank you for this. This should be rule nr°1 in all the Internet so 
>called "governance".
>At 06:11 23/08/00, you wrote:
>>The ICANN Board is responsible for global policy of DNS (and IP) 
>>administration.  Having experience with a particular registry is, of 
>>course, helpful.  However it tells us nothing about the person's 
>>understanding of large-scale operations, design or policy issues. They 
>>might have great insight or they might not.  We can't tell.
>>An auto mechanic might be quite good at auto repair, but would you 
>>automatically assume that they are good at designing a new automobile, or 
>>even able to suggest engineering changes to existing cars?  And just so 
>>there is no confusion:  the answer to both parts is no.)

otoh, I would trust someone who does not know how a car works with 
designing a new one about as far as I can throw the average car.
If the choice for car designer (technical) is between an auto mechanic and 
a medical doctor, I know what I'd choose, in the absence of other information.

This argument by analogy has probably gone far enough.

(As an IAB member and thus part of the team behind the unique root comment, 
I won't comment on the rest of the message - I don't want to bother trying 
to convince people who *refuse* to understand.)

            Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [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, 23 Aug 2000 15:13:36 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Greetings:

Since you called my name, I will answer, at least in part. Working within
the United Nations system, in my case for UNIDO (UN Industrial Development
Org) is a great way to learn more than you might want to know about
International policy. UNIDO is the only UN agency with a mandate to assist
the private sector- although the request for project assistance must come
from a government.

The object of the game is to successfully put down some kind of development
that adds jobs, boosts the (local) economy, does not offend anyone
politically, provides a product or service that can make it past GATT and
WTO restrictions and be exported somewhere, and make enough business sense
to get world bank financing. An added benefit is ffor the project to become
self-sustaining and pay off the loans.

On second thought, working with global Internet policy may be more of a
challenge. Consensus building work can be very satisfying, once the process
is complete. It does require patience. Perhaps it is the ultimate democracy.

regards

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Dave
Crocker
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 12:12 AM
To: Jonathan Weinberg
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

At 09:57 AM 8/22/00 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>At 01:29 AM 8/22/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >focusing on various, vague, general fears, rather than on specific
> >constructive goals or even constructive approaches to making
> >improvements.  There also seems to be an unfortunate lack of
understanding
> >of DNS technical details or even of ICANN's limited scope.
>
>         I was intrigued by Dave's comment, so I took a look at the
> acceptance statements of the various

Jonathan, an interesting exercise.  Thanks for pursuing it.

While what follows might seem critical, it is intended to suggest the
difficulty of evaluating candidates.  The question is how to tell who is
really qualified, and THAT begins with trying to understand requirements of
the job.

(I should dissemble a bit further.  None of what follows is critical of the
people being discussed.  Rather, I'm trying to focus on the criteria.)

>Peter de Blanc (de Blanc established a ccTLD registry, and so presumably
>is familiar with DNS technical details)

The ICANN Board is responsible for global policy of DNS (and IP)
administration.  Having experience with a particular registry is, of
course, helpful.  However it tells us nothing about the person's
understanding of large-scale operations, design or policy issues. They
might have great insight or they might not.  We can't tell.

An auto mechanic might be quite good at auto repair, but would you
automatically assume that they are good at designing a new automobile, or
even able to suggest engineering changes to existing cars?  And just so
there is no confusion:  the answer to both parts is no.)

> >I feel that is our responsibility, as Internet professionals, to
> champion the cause of outreach to under serviced populations. . . .

All of this text that you quoted is really general platitudes.  Not
negative, and that's nice, but it tells us nothing about what the person
knows or how they might decide particular issues.  (To be fair, of course,
the application form did not solicit such detail.  For those voting,
however, it would be helpful to get it.)

>James P. Love

Given that James and I have had strong exchanges and seem to hold strongly
different views, it's worth noting that most if the text you quoted from
him is far more concrete than the usual platitudes provided in such forms.

>>e.   ICANN should not require new TLD registries to sign contractual
>>provisions or make other assurances that they will not participate in
>>alternative root systems.  I am not aware of any evidence that such
>>alternatives present problems for the Internet, and ICANN should avoid
>>practices that will be seen as monopolistic or anticompetitive.

Most of the statements pertain to fuzzier aspects of legitimate social (and
legal) policy and, therefore, can reasonably be debated.  This one,
however, falls victim to the efforts at trying to move technical realities
and constraints into that fuzzier area.  That is, it tries to pretend that
technical issues are not technical issues.  We had all better be very
careful that ICANN does not start trying to make rules that violate
technical realities, such as the nature of the DNS root.

d/

- --
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, 23 Aug 2000 22:20:08 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] List rules

At 11:23 23/08/2000 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
>The proper way to do this is have the list moderator and two others 
>(usually appointed by the list owner). The goal is to have both protection 
>for the list moderator and an independent review in all complaint decisions.

I thought that the GA members wanted list monitors who were chosen by the 
members and responsible to the members, rather than to an "externally 
appointed" person?

The closest thing we have to a list owner is the NC, or possibly the GA chair.
Strange to see you arguing for more power to the NC....

                   Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [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, 23 Aug 2000 18:55:47 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

That timing makes more sense to me, actually. I didn't remember him in an
ongoing role during most of the work of the group.

But, then you know how memory cells are sometimes!  Thanks for checking the
archieves.

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 12:15 AM
To: Harald Alvestrand; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Andy Gardner; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

At 07:33 PM 8/22/00 -0700, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>At 20:14 22/08/2000 -0400, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>>I worked in Working Group B.  I am unaware of Jonathan Cohen's involvement
>>in that working group.  Is there some confusion here?
>
>on his resume, he mentioned that he had co-chaired the group.
>But when I check out my WG-B archives, I find that Victoria Carrington said

>that she had replaced him as "NC representative" on Nov 15, 1999 - so it 
>may not be right to blame him for anything that happened after that.

	Victoria Carrington is an associate lawyer in the firm in which
Jonathan
Cohen is senior managing partner.  She was named to his position
representing the Intellectual Property Constituency on the NC when he
joined the ICANN Board.

Jon
- --
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, 24 Aug 2000 00:22:54 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] List rules

At 10:20 PM 8/23/00 +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>At 11:23 23/08/2000 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
>>The proper way to do this is have the list moderator and two others 
>>(usually appointed by the list owner). The goal is to have both 
>>protection for the list moderator and an independent review in all 
>>complaint decisions.
>
>I thought that the GA members wanted list monitors who were chosen by the 
>members and responsible to the members, rather than to an "externally 
>appointed" person?
>
>The closest thing we have to a list owner is the NC, or possibly the GA chair.

NC creates a problem. GA Chair is more suitable, but it really should be 
the operational list keeper.

>Strange to see you arguing for more power to the NC....

I'm full of surprises. But I'm not quite stretching it that far. ;)

Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

- --
It's a feature not a bug...

- --
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, 24 Aug 2000 12:27:28 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] List rules

At 00:22 24/08/2000 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
>NC creates a problem. GA Chair is more suitable, but it really should be 
>the operational list keeper.

that's what we got into trouble about with "no democratic oversight" back 
in the fall of '99.
The operational list keeper is (and wants to be) a strictly technical role; 
the troubles the list rules were designed to deal with are not of a 
strictly technical nature.

               Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [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: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 04:58:49 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] List rules

Hello Harald,

Thursday, August 24, 2000, 3:27:28 AM, you wrote:

> At 00:22 24/08/2000 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
>>NC creates a problem. GA Chair is more suitable, but it really should be 
>>the operational list keeper.

> that's what we got into trouble about with "no democratic oversight" back 
> in the fall of '99.

I think that foolishness is over, though, and was more about otherwise
intelligent people finding any excuse to criticize.

> The operational list keeper is (and wants to be) a strictly technical role; 
> the troubles the list rules were designed to deal with are not of a 
> strictly technical nature.

I agree.  I support the GA Chair being in control for now....but that
may be because I trust Roberto and you.  Had the NC appointed someone
of less trustworthiness, I may have felt differently.

I think the GA should have some control over its Chair.  Some means
to get rid of a chair, etc.  There should be some recourse from the GA
that the chair is subject to that will keep the GA chair on the side
of the GA.  As it stands now the GA Chair exists at the whim of the
NC, and has to be pleasing to them.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 18:16:40 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] List rules

William,

>
>I agree.  I support the GA Chair being in control for now....but that
>may be because I trust Roberto and you.  Had the NC appointed someone
>of less trustworthiness, I may have felt differently.
>

Thanks.

>I think the GA should have some control over its Chair.  Some means
>to get rid of a chair, etc.  There should be some recourse from the GA
>that the chair is subject to that will keep the GA chair on the side
>of the GA.  As it stands now the GA Chair exists at the whim of the
>NC, and has to be pleasing to them.
>

You are absolutely right.
And in fact, I wonder whether this matter should be raised now, in the 
scope of the to-be-formed WG for the DNSO Review.
It will be perfectly legitimate, IMHO, to ask for a modification of the 
rules in the sense of a direct election of the GA Chairman by the GA.

Regards
Roberto
- --
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, 24 Aug 2000 19:10:37 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: DNS/ICANN understanding

Jefsey,

I will only object to the unique/multiple root argumentation, without 
entering into all other details of your post.

Our disagreement is focused on two points.
First, "Does/doesn't a unique (common) root removs navigation rights";
Second, "which of the two equation [global=public] and [global=public+
extended] is correct".

About the first point, you correctly pointed out that RFC 2826 does not 
preclude <private> networks to run with their <private> root.
Therefore, if the <private> networks are able to make their offer 
attractive to the public, nothing prevents them to have customers 
joining. The freedom of choice of an individual to join whatever 
alternative the market offers is one thing, the obligation of a common 
(or global) structure to include in the common services that offer is a 
different thing.
As pointed out in the same RFC, the market will be puzzled in a 
situation in which typing an URL you reach different sites, depending on
 how your PC is configured (or the choice of your ISP). This will kill e
- -commerce. As I always say, it is like if you dial a phone number, and 
you reach different people, depending on how your telephone is 
configured.

Moreover, the example you make in support of your argumentation:

>
>I may want to subscribe to a [family] DNS root which removed all the 
adult 
>and gambling sites, or to a [business] DNS root which also removed all 
the 
>family related sites, replacing by little flowers, or NASDAQ reports. 
These 
>DNS roots are value added DNS roots.

First of all, I will be happy to know how a root server operator can 
remove sites of adult content.
But besides this, what prevents you from doing this?

>
>Value added DNS services is a coming industry, with broad ambitions. 
The 
>alternative root pionneering time will probably be over very soon as 
>alternative evoluates towards super (cf. infra).

Correct.
But value added services will build their offer, and they will be 
succesfull up to the extent that they will be able to convince 
subscribers.
But this will remain what it is: a private service.
What you ask is that they will have the same status as the public/common
 service. Which is a different thing, and has nothing to do with freedom
 of choice.

To the second point, extended services.

Extended services are "private" for their very nature.
The scheme you suggest, i.e. to use the "private" (="added value") 
network, and to use the "public" (="common") is perfectly legitimate, 
and is already in use by the ISPs that work with the alternate root 
server operators.
The problem is that the way they resolve the names is "private". Another
 "private investor" may provide another value added system that will 
resolve the same names in a different way.
In other words, this is the exact opposite of "global", it is "very 
local indeed"!

Back to the telephone analogy, in my company we have a PABX. If we want 
to connect to the global (pardon, the public) STN, we dial a code then 
the global (well, public) E164 number. OTOH, if I want to speak to my 
boss, I dial 1234.
This is "very local indeed", because in my previous company, while to 
get an external number the provcedure was the same, dialling 1234 would 
have brought me to a different person.
Having PABXes for managing private STN is fine, but we can never make 
the assumption that the number of our boss, no matter how important the 
boss, will have the same global visibility as an E164 number.

My bottom line? The DN under a TLD that is in the a.root is "global" 
like an E164 phone number. DNs under a TLD that is in an alternate root 
is not "illegal" at all, but will have the same visibility that an 
extension number will have: local, to the customers of the PABX.

Best regards
Roberto
- --
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 #125
************************