Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1250
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, May 31 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1250

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 02:14:23 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: How to get rid of volunteers (Re: [ga] How to disenfranchise 489 members of the DNSO)

Kristy and all assembly members,

  I am sure with the addition of all the manure being spewed forth
here yesterday and today, I am sure you would have the additional
benefit of some fertilizer for your garden as well, Kristy.  >:)
Although the stench may be a bit pungent...

Kristy McKee wrote:

> Thomas,
>
> My garden would certainly benefit from a strike.
>
> ---
>
> I am disappointed the GAC is not concerned about protecting the rights of
> netizens as a whole and that they support the intentional elimination of
> communication channels to those folks whom are permitted "control" over OUR
> RESOURCES.
>
>  From the beginning we have known ICANN itself does not want community
> participation or support, for example look at the way they treated the At
> Large (creating only to disband) and especially our At Large Directors.
>
> It has been apparent, but not obvious that ICANN's DNSO also does not want
> to provide a voice for netizens a whole; but rather to service providers
> only.  (I guess they think they know what their customers want without
> going through the pain of consulting with them.)
>
> I wonder, can I continue to work on the WHOIS Task Force now that the NC
> has made this decision and when will the GA have new elections since
> neither you or Alexander qualify for membership?
>
> Life goes on, the world turns round, none of this will matter in a hundred
> years.
>
> :)
>
> ~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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 00:39:45 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: How to get rid of volunteers (Re: [ga] How to disenfranchise 489 members of the DNSO)

At 11:57 PM 30/05/02 -0500, Kristy McKee wrote:

>I am disappointed the GAC is not concerned about
>protecting the rights of netizens as a whole and
>that they support the intentional elimination of
>communication channels to those folks whom are
>permitted "control" over OUR RESOURCES.

Well put.

>Life goes on, the world turns round, none of this
>will matter in a hundred years.

Au contraire. Assuming we haven't killed ourselves
off as a species, or some other such catastrophy,
the internet of a hundred years hence may well be
as important to that time as fire was to our
ancestors. Governments and those who put them
there know that and that is why they want control.

A change of a few degrees now could make for a
very different world for those who follow. I'm
damned if I want to leave it to the turkeys who
have screwed things up so badly that we are left
plausibly wondering if our species will be here
in a hundred years. -g

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

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:40:19 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Registrars draft on Nominating Committee

>Envelope-to: [email-masked]
>From: Bruce Tonkin <[email-masked]>
>To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: [council] Nominating Committee
>Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 17:01:19 +1000
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dnso.dnso.org id IAA27349
>Sender: [email-masked]
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by dnso.dnso.org id IAA27352
>
>Hello All,
>
>As far as I understand there is general support amongst registrars for a
>nominating committee for the ICANN Board.  There have been a range of
>different views on the structure of the nominating committee.  Below is
>extracted from the draft position paper  - dated 14 May 2002 posted by
>Michael Palage to the registrars mailing list.  The paper resulted from
>several teleconferences and discussions amongst registrars.
>
>Regards,
>Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>
>The Nominating Committee should be composed of fifteen (15) voting members
>who are representative of the following sectors:
>
>·       Five (5) Providers
>·       Five (5) Users
>·       Five (5) At-large, government or equivalent representatives
>
>The Provider sector should ideally be parties that have contractual
>relationships with ICANN to provide DNS and Numbering services such as
>Registrars, Generic TLD Registries, registries, RIRs, Root Server Operators,
>etc, whereas the User sector would ideally encompass a broad spectrum of
>commercial, non-commercial and individual viewpoints. 
>
>Until an appropriate mechanism can be identified to select the five (5) at
>large, government, or equivalent representatives, ICANN should consider
>extending an invitation to existing At Large Board Directors at the
>conclusion of their term. Individuals nominated by the governments and
>distinct economies in the unrepresentative geographic region should fill any
>vacancies created by At Large Board Directors declining participation in the
>Nominating Committee.
>
>The Nominating Committee should be co-chaired by one (1) elected voting
>chair selected from among the fifteen members and one (1) appointed Trustee
>of the Board, preferably the CEO, serving in a non-voting advisory role. All
>voting members should be prohibited from serving on the ICANN Board of
>Trustees for a period of three years following the end of his or her term.
>
>The undersigned at this time have not yet formed an opinion as to the exact
>manner in how the representative members of each sector should be elected,
>or for how long they should serve. 
>
>In selecting the ten (10) At Large ICANN Board of Trustee Representatives,
>the Nominating Committee should use the following checklist of perspectives
>to ensure that a geographically and philosophically diverse group of
>Trustees is selected. This enumerated list of viewpoints is not meant to be
>exhaustive, but instead to provide a summary of those viewpoints that have
>been voiced in the current ICANN process to date and which will be important
>going forward. In some cases it may be possible for a Trustee to represent
>multiple viewpoints.
>
>·       Registrars
>·       Generic TLD Registries;
>·       Geographic TLD Registries;
>·       Root Server Operators;
>·       Regional Internet Registries;
>·       Large Business;
>·       Small Business;
>·       Non-Commercial;
>·       Individual Registrants;
>·       Intellectual Property Owners;
>·       Law Enforcement;
>·       Consumer Advocates;
>·       Governmental; and
>·       Civil Libertarians. 

- --
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: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:35:06 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: How to get rid of volunteers (Re: [ga] How to disenfranchise 489 members of the DNSO)

- --=======49025BE7=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3273D97; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 09:39 31/05/02, Gary Osbourne said:
>A change of a few degrees now could make for a
>very different world for those who follow. I'm
>damned if I want to leave it to the turkeys who
>have screwed things up so badly that we are left
>plausibly wondering if our species will be here
>in a hundred years. -g

The change is extremely simple, like Liberty. Instead to be like puppies in 
a leash around the root system, it is to use a standalone user system 
architecture with your own root (or obtained from who you want). This is 
the way it worked on the international system before the DNS was invented. 
This is the way it could easily work with a resolver.ini file should 
BillyWindows wants it. Or a sourceforge standalone resolver project. jfc

- --=======49025BE7=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3273D97
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

- --=======49025BE7=======--

- --
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: Fri, 31 May 2002 07:49:27 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: How to get rid of volunteers (Re: [ga] How to  disenfranchise 489 members of the DNSO)

Gary Osbourne wrote:

> At 11:57 PM 30/05/02 -0500, Kristy McKee wrote:
>
>> Life goes on, the world turns round, none of this
>> will matter in a hundred years.
>
>
> Au contraire. Assuming we haven't killed ourselves
> off as a species, or some other such catastrophy,
> the internet of a hundred years hence may well be
> as important to that time as fire was to our
> ancestors. Governments and those who put them
> there know that and that is why they want control.
>
> A change of a few degrees now could make for a
> very different world for those who follow. I'm
> damned if I want to leave it to the turkeys who
> have screwed things up so badly that we are left
> plausibly wondering if our species will be here
> in a hundred years. 

Oh?  Does that mean you're not interested in colonizing Mars like some 
bozos?

:-)

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

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 12:53:44 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: ccTLDs in early ICANN - Was: [ga] your comments

Kristy,

>
>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.
>

First of all, the quoted passage is not from Joe, but from Peter.

Second, Peter does not get into the controversial point on whether ccTLDs 
are supportive *now*, but that they *have been* very supportive.
This is uncontroversial statement, contained in public records. Please have 
a look at wide evidence at http://www.dnso.org/history/history.html.

Specifically about the DNSO and the GA, may I remind that the first proposal 
of a GA came from Dennis Jennings (CENTR, .ie), and that the first 
Chairperson was Nii Quainor (.gh).

In the early days, the criticism was exactly the opposite, i.e. that the 
DNSO was almost captured by the overwhelming participation of the ccTLDs 
(see records of the Monterrey meeting).

ccTLDs have been not only among the early active supporters, but they were 
about the only Constituency who was providing international representation. 
Besides my good friend Antonio Harris, from Argentina, the only non-OECD 
participants in the process I can remember were ccTLD managers.

The question now should be why this has changed. The question is how did 
ICANN manage to disperse the huge potential for consensus in its initial 
days, and I am asking this not in order to find the scapegoat, but in order 
to get it fixed (or get it better the second time).
Because whichever path will be taken, either fixing the current ICANN or 
appointing newCo, the problems will remain the same. And they only can be 
adressed by discussing the things that are going wrong, and elaborating 
alternatives. Motion-mania, that seems to be the new game in town, is 
leading us nowhere.

Incidentally, supposing that USG rebids the contract, what will be the GA 
position? To hope that they get a better candidate, or to try to lay down 
criteria for choice? And in this second case, how does this differ from 
applying these criteria to reform ICANN?

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

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

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 06:45:29 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] What is the status opf my membership

    I have been waiting days now and want to know the status of my
membership.

Todd Glassey

- --
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: Fri, 31 May 2002 16:28:09 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0312_01C208C0.26D60B20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thomas,
I do believe there is a degree of suicidal misinterpretation of the =
current NC recommendations.
=20

The chair and alt-chair of the GA have been invited by the Names Council =
to participate in discussions in ICANN evolution. That invitation =
stands. Your perspectives are learned, reasoned and valued. Today you =
represent the dual role of today's GA.=20

=20
The NC has not said it wants to disenfranchise anyone. It has redefined =
the role of the general assembly as being the meeting point for =
stakeholders. The GA envisaged is not intended to fulfil the existing =
dual role of today's GA.
=20

The argument should be - who are the stakeholders? Agree on them, and =
once they self-organise get them round the table and in the new DNSO and =
new GA.

So, the question remains,  how can individual opinion not so =
self-organised be factored into decision making ?
Is there something desirable about today's GA  and the respect it =
receives in trying to do this?
Is there possibly a better means of factoring in individual opinion?
The NC recommendation tries to address this.

Philip

- ------=_NextPart_000_0312_01C208C0.26D60B20
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2715.400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Thomas,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I do believe there is a degree of suicidal =
misinterpretation=20
of the current NC recommendations.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The chair and alt-chair of the GA have been invited =
by the=20
Names Council to participate in discussions in ICANN evolution. That =
invitation=20
stands. Your perspectives are learned, reasoned and valued. Today you =
represent=20
the dual role of today's GA. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The NC has not said it wants to disenfranchise =
anyone. It has=20
redefined the role of the general assembly as being the meeting point =
for=20
stakeholders. The GA envisaged is not intended to fulfil the existing =
dual role=20
of today's GA.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The argument should be - who are the stakeholders? =
Agree on=20
them, and once they self-organise get them round the table and in the =
new DNSO=20
and new GA.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>So, the question remains, &nbsp;how =
can&nbsp;individual=20
opinion not so self-organised be factored into decision making =
?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Is there something desirable about today's GA&nbsp; =
and the=20
respect it receives in trying to do this?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Is there possibly a better means of factoring in =
individual=20
opinion?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The NC&nbsp;recommendation tries to address =
this.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0312_01C208C0.26D60B20--

- --
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: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:02:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA 

How can there still be debate so many years into the process on "who are
the stakeholders"?  It's obvious that at teh very least all domain name
registrants are 'stakeholders' under even the most restrictive
definition, since they are directly and personally effected by ICANN's
decisions (e.g. the UDRP).

That you still question this calls a great deal into doubt.  

So, the question remains (after a manipulated and thus pointless TF on
strucutre): is there any value to the current NC?  Do pronnouncements of a
gerrymandered body, chaired by a person who remains in office only because
the rules were manipulated to allow a domanant faction to keep control
warrant our attention?

I believe there is a suicidal tendancy in the current NC to think these
questions can be swept under the rug.

On Fri, 31 May 2002, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Thomas,
> I do believe there is a degree of suicidal misinterpretation of the current NC recommendations.
>  
> 
> The chair and alt-chair of the GA have been invited by the Names Council to participate in discussions in ICANN evolution. That invitation stands. Your perspectives are learned, reasoned and valued. Today you represent the dual role of today's GA. 
> 
>  
> The NC has not said it wants to disenfranchise anyone. It has redefined the role of the general assembly as being the meeting point for stakeholders. The GA envisaged is not intended to fulfil the existing dual role of today's GA.
>  
> 
> The argument should be - who are the stakeholders? Agree on them, and once they self-organise get them round the table and in the new DNSO and new GA.
> 
> 
> So, the question remains, how can individual opinion not so
> self-organised be factored into decision making ?

> Is there something desirable about today's GA  and the respect it receives in trying to do this?

> Is there possibly a better means of factoring in individual opinion?

> The NC recommendation tries to address this.
> 
> Philip
> 
> 
> 

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:59:09 -0400
From: t byfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ccTLDs in early ICANN - Was: [ga] your comments

[email-masked] (Fri 05/31/02 at 12:53 PM +0000):

> Incidentally, supposing that USG rebids the contract, what will be the GA 
> position? To hope that they get a better candidate, or to try to lay down 
> criteria for choice? And in this second case, how does this differ from 
> applying these criteria to reform ICANN?

these are excellent questions, roberto -- i'm glad you asked them.

if anyone would deem one candidate better than another, clearly there
are criteria at play; so it seems to me it might be good to start dis-
cussing what those criteria would be. moreover, tackling this question
per se is much preferable to yet another combination debate about the
issues at hand with a metadebate about the process by which those issues
are proposed or advanced.

how would developing criteria differ from applying them to a 'reformed'
ICANN? well, let me ask you what a 'reformed' ICANN would mean. my own
feeling is that for 'reformed' to have any practical meaning, at least
the following criteria would need to be applied:

     - it could not employ anyone currently employed by ICANN
     - its board could not include any member of ICANN's 'initial'
       or 'interim' board
     - it could not be legally represented by JDRP

however, if by some magic these reforms were applied, the resulting or-
ganization would be a very different creature indeed -- and, possibly, 
acceptable. 

of course, these aren't really 'reforms,' and they would strike most 
people unfamiliar with ICANN as punitive and personal -- hardly a good
basis for policy, even in the short term.

therefore, i would suggest that discussions of how to reform the unre-
formable is a waste of time. it would make much more sense to discuss 
criteria for a new organization -- and not least because we've already
had these conversations, in the form of the IFWP. looking back on those 
records with the benefit of subsequent experience seems like a good way 
to proceed. in particular, it opens up the possibility of articulating 
positive goals rather than dwelling on past negations.

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: Fri, 31 May 2002 17:09:44 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_03AC_01C208C5.F5EFACE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Michael Froomkin wrote:
"It's obvious that at the  very least all domain name registrants are =
'stakeholders' under even the most restrictive definition, since they =
are directly and personally effected by ICANN's decisions (e.g. the =
UDRP). That you still question this calls a great deal into doubt". =20

Just exactly when did I question this ?  The essence of my posting was =
to ask if accommodating such stakeholders via an e-mail list called the =
GA could not be improved upon.

Philip

- ------=_NextPart_000_03AC_01C208C5.F5EFACE0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2715.400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff background=3D"">
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Michael Froomkin wrote:<BR><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff>"It's obvious=20
that at the&nbsp; very least all domain name registrants are =
'stakeholders'=20
under even the most restrictive definition, since they are directly and=20
personally effected by ICANN's decisions (e.g. the UDRP). That you still =

question this calls a great deal into doubt".</FONT>&nbsp; <BR><BR>Just =
exactly=20
when did I question this ?&nbsp; The essence of my posting was to ask if =

accommodating&nbsp;such stakeholders via an e-mail list called the GA =
could not=20
be improved upon.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><BR><BR>Philip</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_03AC_01C208C5.F5EFACE0--

- --
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: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:37:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA 

You said:
"The argument should be - who are the stakeholders? Agree on them, and
once they self-organise get them round the table and in the new DNSO and
new GA."

I took this to mean that there is some debate about who the stakeholders
are.  If you meant "we all agree who the stakeholders are, so we should
set up appropriate structures for them", that would be different.  But
that's not at all what you said, or am I missing something?

Note that none of the existing NC constitutencies *really* self-organized
in that they were identified by ICANN ex ante.

On Fri, 31 May 2002, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Michael Froomkin wrote:
> "It's obvious that at the  very least all domain name registrants are 'stakeholders' under even the most restrictive definition, since they are directly and personally effected by ICANN's decisions (e.g. the UDRP). That you still question this calls a great deal into doubt".  
> 
> Just exactly when did I question this ?  The essence of my posting was to ask if accommodating such stakeholders via an e-mail list called the GA could not be improved upon.
> 
> 
> Philip
> 

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:44:04 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Research: .NAME Registrations Not Conforming to .NAME Registration Restrictions

GA members have previously offered a variety of comments on charters, uses,
and allegations of impermissible registrations in new TLDs.  In this
context, I thought GA readers might be interested in my new ".NAME
Registrations Not Conforming to .NAME Registration Restrictions."

In this research, I document nearly 6000 .NAME domain names that seem not to
conform to .NAME's registration restrictions.  Contrary to .NAME's registry
agreement (with ICANN) and registration agreement (with registrants, via
registrars), each name in my listings is seemingly not the name or pseudonym
of any individual.  Instead, these names serve a variety of different
functions -- names of companies (sharper.image.name), organizations
(harvard.university.name), products (allergy.tylenolallergysinus.name), and
geographic locations (stateof.california.name), for example, along with a
variety of names related to sexually-explicit content and domain name
registration.   These many nonconforming registrations, constituting more
than 8% of currently-registered .NAME domains, call into question the
effectiveness of enforcement of .NAME registration restrictions.

I've tabulated the names alphabetically, by registrant (for those
registrants with the most registrations), and by registrar.  At the
suggestion of readers of my previous work, I've also made it easier to find
the specific domains registered, for example, by a given registrar.

My work is available at:
  <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/name-restrictions/>.

I'm currently beginning what I expect will be a several-month project of
quantitatively evaluating and documenting all new TLDs.  I welcome
suggestions from GA members as to important focus areas for my research.

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

- --
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: Fri, 31 May 2002 09:27:02 -0700
From: Darrell Greenwood <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fwd: [Random-bits] Brock Meeks on ICANN "reform"

- ---begin forwarded text

From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Random-bits] Brock Meeks on ICANN "reform"
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 08:53:46 -0400

http://www.msnbc.com/news/759558.asp

      Cannibals in cyberspace

      Internet governing body feasts on itself

      OPINION
      By Brock N. Meeks
      MSNBC

      WASHINGTON, May 30 - The issue of Internet governance has all the
appeal of a rare intestinal disease and less political clout than an orphan
drug. There is no Julia Roberts waiting in the wings to testify before
Congress on behalf of democratic values in cyberspace. So as the private
body tasked with overseeing the stability of the Internet hovers on the
brink of disaster it comes as no surprise that few are aware of the
situation and that even fewer care.

            THE INTERNET CORPORATION for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
is the non-profit organization tapped by the U.S. government nearly four
years ago to shepherd control of the Internet from a government centric
network and mainstream it into the hyperbolic world known as "the New
Economy."
             ICANN, however, has served only to become a real-time parody of
its acronym.
             The brutal truth is, ICANN can't. It can't handle the task
initially given to it, can't handle the tasks it usurped along the way in
classic Washingtonian mission creep style, can't keep its promises and can't
manage to stay away from controversy. ICANN has eaten itself and then
proceeded to ask for seconds and thirds.
             But don't take my word for it. Stuart Lynn, ICANN's CEO admits
that his organization "is viewed by many key stakeholders as more of a
debating society than as an effective operational body. Thus, ICANN as it
now stands is, at best, an incomplete experiment."
             Maybe it's just me, but I find it odd that with the stability
of a global resource, the Internet, at stake, ICANN sees fit to reduce its
fundamental mission so off-handedly to merely an "experiment."
             Perhaps that's because ICANN has forever been held
ideologically hostage by the big moneyed, commercial interests, looking to
protect their own assets in cyberspace and making sure any rules or
procedures adopted by ICANN were stacked in their favor.

             Or perhaps ICANN is perceived as a failure because, despite a
governmental mandate that it do business and create policy in a transparent
and open manner it continues to hold secret meetings and votes and only
informs the public afterward of its decisions. Such criticism has dogged
ICANN from its very beginning. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., during an ICANN
oversight hearing said, "We know more about how the Cardinals select a new
Pope at the Vatican than we do about ICANN's internal affairs."
             One of ICANN's elected board members is in fact suing to gain
access to its financial records after ICANN officials stonewalled his
repeated requests to have a look at them. ICANN counters that this director
can look all he wants, as long as he promises to sign a confidentiality
agreement and keep his mouth shut about anything he sees or uncovers.
             ICANN officials bristle just at claims they aren't transparent.
Joe Simms, ICANN's lawyer and de facto Washington power broker, defended the
organization's penchant for closed door meetings in a recent public mailing
list comment saying that transparency shouldn't be interpreted to mean
"discussion and actions have to be taken in full public view. Why this is so
is not intuitively obvious."
             Simms rambled on that, "Transparency to me means that all
actions taken are disclosed and explained on the public record, for all to
see and react to, not that they can only be done in a stadium or on a web
cast."
             The fact that many would like an active, participatory voice in
a group that is supposed to operate, by its own bylines, from a "bottom up"
approach, leaves Simms to simply scratch himself and bleat about ICANN's
critics: "The fact that they would like to listen in to every conversation
does not rise to the level of a condition precedent to openness."

      SO NOT FOR THE PEOPLE

            ICANN experimented with a global voting process in which it
elected five "at large" members to its board of directors. The process was
less than fluid; there were some warts, but the elections were held and
those elected came from the vast sea of "stakeholders" known as Internet
users.
             Could the process have been smoother? Yes. Were there
allegations of voting impropriety? Yes, but compared to the last
presidential election ICANN's at-large vote was a show of a hands at a PTA
meeting to elect the next bake sale chairman.
             But these pesky representatives of the people have just, well,
become a bother it seems for the ICANN power structure. And so over a few
bottles of moderately expensive wine ICANN officials recently decided-though
did not make it "official"- to simply do away with further public elections
preferring instead to throw over the process for a nomination and selection
exercise that becomes the purview of governments not the grassroots.
             And now just as the going gets real tough Lynn announces that
he is abandoning ship in March of next year due to health and personal
reasons. But before he jumps from this sinking ship, Lynn has left behind a
major policy paper in which he lays out his ideas for how ICANN might reform
itself.

             The reforms boil down to this: toss most of the responsibility
back to government. This idea is so bereft of intellectual heft that even
members of the U.S. Congress can grok the dangers in such a plan.
             "It is our belief that such proposals will make ICANN even less
democratic, open and accountable than it is today," wrote House Energy and
Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin, R-La., along with ranking member
John Dingell, D-Mich., in a letter to Commerce Secretary Donald Evans. The
Commerce Department has the ultimate authority over ICANN by means of a
contract or "Memorandum of Understanding" it signed with the organization
that gave ICANN whatever power it has today.
             That contract is coming up for renewal and a group of 14
different organizations that have kept track of ICANN's travails weighed in
on the subject Wednesday in a letter to Secretary Evans asking him to
"re-bid" the contract a move that would put ICANN's future in doubt.
             "Requiring ICANN to compete against qualified bidders will
provide a strong incentive for ICANN to engage in a thorough housecleaning
and become more genuinely responsive to the comments of stakeholders," the
letter says. "It will also ensure that, if ICANN cannot put its house in
order, the Department will have alternatives."
             Billions of dollars in electronic commerce and the fate of the
electronic global community hang in the balance and depend on those
decisions.

- --------------------------------
James Love mailto:[email-masked]
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040

_______________________________________________
Random-bits mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits

- ---end forwarded text

- --
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: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:41:54 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Research: .NAME Registrations Not Conforming to .NAME Registration Restrictions

Here is another one for you in case you havent got this on your list.
Look up BILL.GATES.NAME.

Doesn't sound like Bill Gates.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 10:44 AM
Subject: [ga] Research: .NAME Registrations Not Conforming to .NAME
Registration Restrictions

> GA members have previously offered a variety of comments on charters,
uses,
> and allegations of impermissible registrations in new TLDs.  In this
> context, I thought GA readers might be interested in my new ".NAME
> Registrations Not Conforming to .NAME Registration Restrictions."
>
> In this research, I document nearly 6000 .NAME domain names that seem not
to
> conform to .NAME's registration restrictions.  Contrary to .NAME's
registry
> agreement (with ICANN) and registration agreement (with registrants, via
> registrars), each name in my listings is seemingly not the name or
pseudonym
> of any individual.  Instead, these names serve a variety of different
> functions -- names of companies (sharper.image.name), organizations
> (harvard.university.name), products (allergy.tylenolallergysinus.name),
and
> geographic locations (stateof.california.name), for example, along with a
> variety of names related to sexually-explicit content and domain name
> registration.   These many nonconforming registrations, constituting more
> than 8% of currently-registered .NAME domains, call into question the
> effectiveness of enforcement of .NAME registration restrictions.
>
> I've tabulated the names alphabetically, by registrant (for those
> registrants with the most registrations), and by registrar.  At the
> suggestion of readers of my previous work, I've also made it easier to
find
> the specific domains registered, for example, by a given registrar.
>
> My work is available at:
>   <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/name-restrictions/>.
>
>
> I'm currently beginning what I expect will be a several-month project of
> quantitatively evaluating and documenting all new TLDs.  I welcome
> suggestions from GA members as to important focus areas for my research.
>
>
> Ben Edelman
> Berkman Center for Internet & Society
> Harvard Law School
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/edelman
>
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1250
*************************