Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1252
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, June 1 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1252

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 17:56:05 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA - The NC's diatribe...

Phillip and all assembly members,

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.

  Good.  But this invitation is not broad enough Phillip.  Why only are
the Chair and the Alt-Chair invited and now any and all
stakeholders/users?

> Your perspectives are learned, reasoned and valued. Today you
> represent the dual role of today's GA.

  In your opinion perhaps.  But recently many member of the DNSO GA
have expressed that such may not be the case.  The recent debate before
the Rebid Motion was very reveling in this perhaps less than accurate
statement.  I fully recognize in your choice of language Phillip, that
you are attempting to prop up TR's persona as DNSO GA Chair
as he is under some considerable fire from several directions
presently...

>
>
>
> The NC has not said it wants to disenfranchise anyone.

  Ok this is good!  But prey tell the DNSO GA members why ONLY
the Chair and Alt Chair can directly communicate with the NC
and are the only stakeholders/users or DNSO GA members that
are invited or allowed to actively participate in the NC's discussion
on ICANN restructure?  This is an especially important question
now that the Rebid Motion has now passed by a whopping large
margin...  Please advise Phillip...

> 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?

  That argument is moot and has been sense the signing of the MoU and
the
White Paper which are still extant and will be if a rebid by DOC/NTIA
is to be considered or otherwise done...

> 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.

  But it failed as you know in the opinion of the GA members which have
broadly expressed that failure now several times, Phillip...

>
>
> Philip
>
>
>
>

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 18:23:35 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Still more fraud being reported...

Jamie and all assembly members,

James Love wrote:

> Who is supposed to enforce these things?

  Well it is supposed to be the ICANN Staff's job to enforce "These Things"!
But of course in that the Registry contracts have no viable enforcement
mechanism in them, which we [INEGroup] strongly recommended at the time
they were being reviewed, the ICANN Staff cannot enforce them in any
meaningful or effective manner.
But than again Jamie, you already know all this...  Thanks though
for yet again at least asking the question so that all of the GA
members have a chance to understand the depth of the REAL
problems that the Registries now, and have for awhile, posed...

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 3:19 PM
> Subject: [ga] Still more fraud being reported...
>
> : From the registrars list:
> :
> : Afilias released 17022 names in the .INFO Landrush 2, however the same
> : People who registered these 17022 FRAUDULENT SUNRISE Names, continue to
> own
> : another 14000+ names which have NOT been challenged by Afilias (The
> numbers
> : may not be exact - check inaccuracies section on online report)
> :
> : For instance lets take the LARGEST Fraudulent Domain Registrant -
> : Plankenstein, who had fraudulently registered 4938 .INFO Domains in the
> : Sunrise period. Plankenstein still continues to own approximately 140
> : Sunrise domains after the Afilias Landrush is over. Check the whois on
> : alava.info, aragon.info, avila.info etc.
> :
> : Visit http://dotinfo.directi.com for the complete research (an interesting
> : study born out of one night of insomnia and boredom)
> :
> : A far more smarter FRAUD which has gone undetected is that of
> : [email-masked]. In the .INFO Sunrise this email address had
> : registered 663 .INFO NAMES. After the Afilias Challenge the same email
> : address continues to hold 646 UNCHALLENGED names. Check the whois on
> : accelerator.info, airwear.info, findus.info. Notice that very smartly this
> : person has put in DIFFERENT Registrants for each domain name, however the
> : FUNNY part is that EVERY DOMAIN NAME has a trademark date of 2000-10-01
> and
> : all the Registrants share the same email address (oh yea and all of them
> : have a funny phone number too).
> :
> : Check out the Complete list at http://dotinfo.directi.com
> :
> : Best Regards
> : Bhavin Turakhia
> : CEO
> : Directi
> :
> : http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02477.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
> :
> :
> :
>
> --
> 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 21:46:43 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Still more fraud being reported...

Just so both sides of the story are heard, it might be helpful to read
Afilias response to Bhavin's analysis.

To: ICANN Registrar Constituency
From: Afilias
Reference: Turakhia Registrar Posting w/r/t .INFO Challenges

We note Mr. Turakhia's recent posting to the Registrar Constituency mailing
list regarding the ".INFO names still unchallenged."  We regret that he
failed to contact Afilias to ascertain the facts surrounding this process.
As a result, there are a number of gross inaccuracies in his posting.

First, all of Mr. Plankenstein's domains HAVE been challenged.  Mr.
Plankenstein's 140 allegedly unchallenged domain names are not part of LR2
because they have not yet completed the challenge process.  Second, many of
the people or organizations that Mr. Turakhia has alleged as committing
fraud show numerous legitimate trademark owners who used an alias account
through a common registrar.  In other instances, registrars inadvertently
supplied incorrect registrant data, which they later corrected in the Shadow
database.  Mr. Turakhia evidently relied on the original, faulty data.

Regarding the 6 specific names cited by Turakhia:
- -- You will note in the Whois that the 3 Plankenstein names (alava.info,
aragon.info, avila.info) remain locked. All three were challenged by members
of the public.  Two remain subject to Afilias challenges of last resort, and
the winning public challenger has not yet taken possession of the third.
- -- The other three (accelerator.info, airwear.info, findus.info) were either
challenged by Afilias or found to be valid Sunrise registrations.

None of Mr. Turakhia's examples hold up against the facts, and his
conclusions are deeply flawed.

Afilias has expended a significant amount of resources attempting to
identify inappropriate registrations, and when qualified trademark owners
have established proof of their rights in a mark we have withdrawn
challenges.  Afilias acknowledges that there may still be inappropriate
Sunrise Registrations and believes that it has used reasonable safeguards to
identify a significant number of inappropriate registrations.  Further,
aggrieved parties have recourse to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the legal system to resolve remaining issues.

We suggest to Mr. Turakhia that, should he have any additional questions or
comments in the future, it would be beneficial to the greater community to
verify the facts before making public comments.

Best regards,
Afilias

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 3:19 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Still more fraud being reported...

>From the registrars list:

Afilias released 17022 names in the .INFO Landrush 2, however the same
People who registered these 17022 FRAUDULENT SUNRISE Names, continue to own
another 14000+ names which have NOT been challenged by Afilias (The numbers
may not be exact - check inaccuracies section on online report)

For instance lets take the LARGEST Fraudulent Domain Registrant -
Plankenstein, who had fraudulently registered 4938 .INFO Domains in the
Sunrise period. Plankenstein still continues to own approximately 140
Sunrise domains after the Afilias Landrush is over. Check the whois on
alava.info, aragon.info, avila.info etc.

Visit http://dotinfo.directi.com for the complete research (an interesting
study born out of one night of insomnia and boredom)

A far more smarter FRAUD which has gone undetected is that of
[email-masked]. In the .INFO Sunrise this email address had
registered 663 .INFO NAMES. After the Afilias Challenge the same email
address continues to hold 646 UNCHALLENGED names. Check the whois on
accelerator.info, airwear.info, findus.info. Notice that very smartly this
person has put in DIFFERENT Registrants for each domain name, however the
FUNNY part is that EVERY DOMAIN NAME has a trademark date of 2000-10-01 and
all the Registrants share the same email address (oh yea and all of them
have a funny phone number too).

Check out the Complete list at http://dotinfo.directi.com

Best Regards
Bhavin Turakhia
CEO
Directi

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02477.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

- --
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 18:53:07 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Anyone with a clue at MelbourneIT? (fwd)

Thanks to both the Yahoo Domains! and MelbourneIT reps who contacted me
about helping the domain registrant who came for help.

Parties from both companies were quite helpful, and according to the
registrant, the entire problem is being resolved properly now.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

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

Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 05:20:20 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Still more fraud being reported...

On Fri, 31 May 2002, at 21:46 [=GMT-0400], Michael D. Palage wrote:

> Afilias has expended a significant amount of resources attempting to
> identify inappropriate registrations,

17,000 cancelled registrations for 5 years (mandatory for sunrise names)
also made Afilais at least $ 500,000.00, if the fee was $6 a year. I
cannot find the exact price, but I seem to remember that it was higher.
And now they can sell the names again. I don't think they deserve any
praise for the way they handled it, first acknowledging there was no
checking, which invited all sorts of fake trademark claims, "because the
others do it too", and then changing the rules after public outcry. Or did
Afilias pay WIPO per case like other challengers?

- --
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 20:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Still more fraud being reported...

Marc,

wholesale price is < $6, $5.25 I think. also sunrise registrations were
sold at a mininimum of 5 years.

- -rick

On Sat, 1 Jun 2002, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Fri, 31 May 2002, at 21:46 [=GMT-0400], Michael D. Palage wrote:
>
> > Afilias has expended a significant amount of resources attempting to
> > identify inappropriate registrations,
>
> 17,000 cancelled registrations for 5 years (mandatory for sunrise names)
> also made Afilais at least $ 500,000.00, if the fee was $6 a year. I
> cannot find the exact price, but I seem to remember that it was higher.
> And now they can sell the names again. I don't think they deserve any
> praise for the way they handled it, first acknowledging there was no
> checking, which invited all sorts of fake trademark claims, "because the
> others do it too", and then changing the rules after public outcry. Or did
> Afilias pay WIPO per case like other challengers?
>
> --
> 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: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 01:59:33 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] New face of the DNSO

This is the "reform" committee recommendation.  ICANN board picks the chair
of the new GNSO, and the GNSO steering committee includes "an appropriate
number of other members selected by the ICANN Nominating Committee."  The
head of the GA will be chaired by the ICANN board selected chair of the
GNSO.   GNSO selects zero ICANN board members.

What is the verdict of those who voted for Motion 2, on the part of that
motion which said:

"Should the ICANN reform process fail to provide significant improvements in
these regards, it is the international Internet community's and governments'
task to consider how all of or parts of ICANN's responsibilities could be
transferred smoothly to one or more new or existing organizations which are
accountable to the international Internet community as a whole, have clearly
defined missions and are not only under the sole control of a national
department of commerce, without endangering the stability of the DNS or the
Internet as a whole."

 Jamie

 http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/recommendations-31may02.htm

d. The GNSO should be chaired by a neutral, non-voting Chair appointed by
the ICANN Board after consultation with the GNSO Steering Committee
described below.
e. The GNSO should have a Steering Committee composed of (1) one voting
representative and one non-voting alternate representative of each of the
GNSO constituencies, and (2) an appropriate number of other members selected
by the ICANN Nominating Committee [see the discussion of the Nominating
Committee Composition and Responsibility above].

f. The General Assembly of the DNSO was originally intended to be the
discussion forum for all participants in the DNSO, with the Names Council
merely the administrative unit. Over time, for a variety of reasons, the GA
has essentially become a separate body from the rest of the DNSO, and has
not served its intended function as the virtual collection of all DNSO
participants and a meaningful cross-constituency forum. The GA should be
returned to its original function as the virtual meeting place of all GNSO
participants. In order to accomplish this, and to insure that it is properly
integrated into the GNSO, the neutral Chair of the GNSO should serve as the
Chair of both the GA and the Steering Committee.

Given our view that the Board, and not the GNSO, must ultimately be
responsible for managing the policy-development process, it follows that the
exact number of constituencies should be less important than it is today. In
addition, since the GNSO should not, in our view, have the responsibility
for directly selecting Board members [see the discussions of the Board
Composition and the Board Selection Process above], this further reduces the
significance of the particular number of constituencies.

The Board should initiate a review of the GNSO approximately one year from
the implementation of these changes to determine what, if any, additional
steps are required at that time to improve GNSO performance.

- --
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 23:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New face of the DNSO

On Sat, 1 Jun 2002, James Love wrote:

> This is the "reform" committee recommendation.  ICANN board picks the chair
> of the new GNSO, and the GNSO steering committee includes "an appropriate
> number of other members selected by the ICANN Nominating Committee."  The
> head of the GA will be chaired by the ICANN board selected chair of the
> GNSO.

Wow, that's bottoms up organization if I've ever seen it. Unfortunately in
this case the bottoms up in question appears to be related to heavy
drinking.

Where do these people get this stuff?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
         Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 09:22:33 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [council] GA

On 2002-05-31 16:28:09 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:

>   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.

While that sounds nice in theory, it would be unlikely to happen  
with the current NC recommendations: For most existing  
constituencies, the incentives created would suggest _not_ to add  
new constituencies.  Pretty much the only result of the current  
recommendations (as far as that's concerned) would probably be a lot 
more of conflict over who fulfills what conditions, and what these  
conditions should look like.  (With the R&E committee  
recommendations, the incentives look different, so it may indeed be  
possible to end up with a - rather - easy process for including new  
constituencies when you start from there.)

The very minimum the NC should add to its recommendations is a  
tentative list of legitimate interests which are (1) recognized, but 
(2) not _yet_ represented in the DNSO.  Individual domain name  
registrants, for instance.  Just giving the current list of  
constituencies (and nothing more) sends the wrong kind of message.

>   So, the question remains, how can individual opinion not so  
>   self-organised be factored into decision making ?

Certainly not by public comment processes, as envisioned by the NC  
recommendations.  Most of these processes have basically been a tool 
to gather some support, and to demonstrate that there are no grave  
objections from anyone one should have listened to.  They have  
_not_ been a method to gather actual input.  (To begin with, most of 
these processes have typically happened in the _end_ of a 
policy-making process.)

Also, thinking abou the GA as a body which is solely intended for  
cross-established-constituency dialogue leaves a several _possible_ 
functions open:

 - Dialogue with veterans.  The GA's members form part of the DNSO's 
   institutional memory, in particular those who have been hanging 
   around for a long time.  Roberto Gaetano is an example.
 - Dialogue across SOs.
 - Dialogue with the members of groups who perceive themselves as 
   stakeholders, but have not yet gone through the constituency 
   accreditation process.
 - Dialogue (as opposed to receiving comments!) with interested 
   members of the general public.
 - Flexible addition of interested individuals to task forces. 

And yes, I do maintain that this is best done in _one_ place. At the 
same time, this means that the idea to close membership in a  
meaningful GA is a bad one.  It just won't work.

Anyway, this discussion is kind of idle...  I could imagine that it  
may be reasonable to freeze the current NC recommendations, and that 
the NC (and not only the NC!) should rather turn its attention to  
the recommendations which have been produced by the Evolution and  
Reform committee.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 09:30:25 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] [council] Evolution and Reform Committee Recommendations for the Evolution and Reform of ICANN (from: [email-masked])

FYI
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

- ----- Forwarded message from Louis Touton <[email-masked]> -----

From: Louis Touton <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 21:05:35 -0700
Subject: [council] Evolution and Reform Committee Recommendations for the Evolution and 
 Reform of ICANN

To the Names Council:

The Evolution and Reform Committee has posted a report entitled
"Recommendations for the Evolution and Reform of ICANN"
<http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/recommendations-31may02.htm>. 
The Committee is seeking public comment on its recommendations in
advance of the meeting in Bucharest from 24-28 June 2002. 
Comments received will be posted on the forum for evolution and reform
issues at <http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/>.

Louis Touton
ICANN Secretary

- ----- End forwarded message -----
- --
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: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 21:33:38 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] your comments

On Thu, 30 May 2002 15:15:37 -0400, "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
wrote:
>I appreciate the clarification.  And you have certainly highlighted some
>issues that are important to some people.  The issue of cc's that act like
>gTLDs is a particularly relevant issue; if a cc registry is going to
>aggressively solicit name registrations from people all over the world,
>shouldn't it have to meet the same minimum standards as do gTLDs?  

This is an interesting issue.  First of all I should say that
personally I don't have a lot of time for ccTLDs which market
themselves as gTLDs (.bz for example) but on the other hand I don't
really regard it as my role to tell sovereign governments and the like
what to do.

>Such
>things as escrow requirements to protect against failure, dispute
>resolution procedures or something equivalent to guard against
>cybersquatting, whois systems that actually work so people can find our who
>to contact when an issue arises  -- stuff like this?  

I believe escrow requirements could well fit within that "narrow range
of technical policies" that should be centrally mandated.  However
policies on trademark rights or registrant contact info are not
something that anything short of a UN treaty should be trying to
impose globally.

>It is one thing to
>argue that a ccTLD that restricts registrations to its nationals or
>residents of the country of its charter should have the "right" to do what
>it wants on these points, since those adversely affected always have
>recourse to the national government, local courts, etc.  But when the
>registry decides to take advantage of the stable global DNS to attract
>registrants that, as a practical matter, do not have those protections, and
>can do so only because the rest of the world is working together through
>ICANN to maintain the global infrastructure that permits that behavior,
>that seems to me to be a different situation altogether.  

The notion of dividing ccTLDs up into "locally restricted" and "open"
is one that would have quite dire and unwarranted consequences.
Taking the ccTLD I know best - .nz as an example.  Now .nz does not
have any eligibility restrictions at all - mainly because it would
impose massive extra costs and time delays on the local internet
community if one did this as the registration process could no longer
be fully automated.

So to avoid being classed as an "open" ccTLD subject to gTLD policies,
.nz would have to impose restrictions which would conflict with its
duty under RFC 1591 to serve the local internet community.

Having said that .nz is open, I should point out that .nz does not
promote itself as anything other the country code for New Zealand.  It
spends next to nothing on "brand awareness" and even that minimal
amount may be scrapped.  It does not seek to make money from .nz but
just to provide a effective and efficient service to the internet
community.

So why should policies that work well for the local internet community
have to be scrapped in favour of ICANN imposed ones?  

>As I understand
>the ICANN position, there is no desire to interfere in any way with local
>policy development; that should be up to the local community.  But when the
>registry takes actions that have global implications or effects, it should
>be subject, as are all other similarly situated registries, to the global
>policy development process.  

But how do you define what is local and what is global?  I have
asserted that a split merely upon whether registrations are restricted
to local residents would be unfair.  Judging local vs global on the
basis of how a ccTLD markets itself seems pretty fraught with danger
to me.  What if the registry does not market itself globally,  but
certain registrars choose to market a ccTLD as a generic TLD without
the permission of the registry??

I understand your frustration that there are arguably some two letter
ccTLDs which have all the characteristics of a gTLD and a case exists
for treating them as an gTLD.  But the subjective judgements involved
in which are and which are not, are so great that ccTLDs are not going
to be enthusiastic about "trusting" ICANN to get it right.  A far
better approach would be to encourage ccTLDs which have the
characteristics of gTLDs to see the benefits of adhering to gTLD
policies as a marketing or security exercise?

>What I take from your post is that you want
>someone else to shoulder the burdens of preserving and protecting the
>global DNS that makes it possible for the ccTLDs to function, but to
>basically leave you alone to do with it what you please (although maybe you
>would be willing to contribute to the purely mechanical work of keeping
>your database records straight).  In antitrust economics, this is called
>"free-riding" and is generally not considered something to be admired or
>protected.

I am certainly not going to try and debate US anti-trust law with you
(as I would lose) but I will take issue with your assertion.

First of all from what I can tell the money donated by ccTLDs overall
to ICANN far outweighs any benefits received from it.  As earlier
referred to one would think that as InternetNZ has donated tens of
thousands of dollars to ICANN (and spent even more than that on
participation) that one would at least be able to get ICANN to update
our address without a years delay.

ccTLDs have said they are very willing to donate to a fair share of
the burdens of the global DNS such as the root server network.  And as
you curtly put it database management on top of that.  However
expecting ccTLDs to keep giving money to an organisation so that
organisation can use their own money to try and coerce them into
signing contracts which surrender their policy making authority is
rather naive to say the least.  

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: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 23:16:05 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ccTLDs in early ICANN - Was: [ga] your comments

On Fri, 31 May 2002 12:53:44 +0000, "Roberto Gaetano"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>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?

Generally I have favoured trying to reform a body rather than try to
set up a replacement one because as you say there is usually no
guarantee a replacement will be better.  During a period when ISOCNZ's
management of .nz was very controversial some advocated trying to get
,nz re-delegated but I was against this as a successor could turn out
to be no different to the original.

However a key difference is that ISOCNZ, like most bodies, allowed
people to join and vote to change it to what they thought it should be
doing.  The internet community has no power at all to change ICANN and
in fact one can argue that the incumbent board and staff of ICANN have
created such a hostile culture that for once it would be far
preferable to set up a new organisation from scratch than try to
reform ICANN.

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: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 08:32:53 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Esther, time to call for a rebid

The current Committee on ICANN reform document is so over the top, it would
seem that it must shred the threshold of accountability for Esther, Marilyn
Cade, Philip Shepard, Steve Melalitz, and MPAA and others who have tolerated
some bad things.   I can't imagine this eminent persons trusteeship model is
acceptable to anyone with any sense of civics.  What can or will the more
establishment figures do about this?  Are the alternatives really worse?

Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "vint cerf" <[email-masked]>; "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>;
"Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 8:01 AM
Subject: [Random-bits] global government without representation ICANN style

: WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?   The Committee on ICANN "reform" and evolution
has
: released its most astonishing document yet.   It wipes away every single
: area where there might be independence from a completely all powerful
board
: of directors, which can pretty  do whatever it wants with the global DNS
: system and controls its own elections (by hand picking its electors).  It
: takes the current dysfunctional body, the ICANN DNSO, which is supposed to
: make bottom up policy for domain name policy, and it replaces it with a
: system where the ICANN board directly picks its chair and as many members
of
: the steering committee it considers appropriate.  It eliminates an elected
: chair of the DNSO General Assembly.  It take away the DNSO's right to
elect
: members of the ICANN board, and the new "GNSO" can't really decide
anything
: anymore anyway, just in case the total control by the ICANN board isn't
: enough of a power grab.  It gets rid of the "PSO", which includes
: independent groups as the IETF or the W3C, which have not been
sufficiently
: docile.   The DoC MoU required independent review process, which was never
: implemented, is now toast.   There is a loser pays arbitration just to ask
: if the ICANN board is not obeying its own bylaws, which of course it can
: change at the drop of a hat if it needs to.
:
: This document is so completely in your face to the US Department of
Commerce
: and the Internet community one has to admire the guts of the current ICANN
: board.  Vint Cerf, Joe Sims and the Reform Committe make Bill Gates and
: Steve Balmer look like wimps.  Jamie
:
:
: http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/recommendations-31may02.htm
:
:          Recommendations for the Evolution and Reform of ICANN
:       Posted: 31 May 2002
: --------------------------------------------------------------------------
:
:       Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform
:       Recommendations for the Evolution and Reform of ICANN
:
:       ========
:
:       II. Board Composition
:
:       These general principles lead us to the following conclusions on
Board
: composition:
:
:         a.. The following should be ex officio Board seats, meaning the
: person who currently holds that position occupies an ICANN Board seat:
:           a. The CEO of ICANN
:           b. The Chair (or delegate) of the GNSO Steering Committee
: (Appointed by BOD)
:           c. The Chair (or delegate) of the ASO Council
:           d. The Chair (or delegate) of the CNSO Steering Committee
:           e. The Chair (or delegate) of the GAC
:           f. The Chair (or delegate) of the RSSAC
:           g. The Chair (or delegate) of the SAC (appointed by ICANN CEO)
:           h. The Chair (or delegate) of the TAC if established, or if not,
: the Chair (or delegate) of the IAB.  (TAC probably appointed by  CEO)
:
: * ICANN requests comments on whether or not some or all of these
: should be non-voting members.
:
: * There should be [five to eleven] additional members of the
: Board, selected by a Nominating Committee.
:
: * Nominating Committee both nominates and elects member the [five
: to eleven] non-ex officio board members.  It also placed members directly
on
: the GNSO and other ICANN "advisory" bodies.   It is chaired by an ICANN
: board member.
:
: * Basically, the ICANN board chooses the Nominating Committee,
: which in turn chooses the board.  The ICANN board may also have the right
to
: reject candidates selected by its hand picked nominatng committee.
:
: NEW FACE OF DNSO (now called GNSO)
:
: ICANN board picks the chair of the new GNSO, and the GNSO
: steering committee includes "an appropriate number of other members
selected
: by the ICANN Nominating Committee."  The head of the GA will be chaired by
: the ICANN board selected chair of the GNSO.   GNSO selects zero ICANN
board
: members.
:
:
: NEW FACE OF PSO:
:
: "The Protocol Supporting Organization should be dissolved."
:
:
:
:
: --------------------------------
: 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
:
:

- --
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: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 17:27:02 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Well done, Alejandro!

- --=======3BD47EEA=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7FBA2CE0; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

The document presented by the Reform Committee is an interesting wording of 
the scheme I recently documented in http://wecann.com/report.pdf. Its 
presentation is in the reverse order of mine, proceeding from a non 
Cartesian approach, so the "Internet Campus" looks more a English Garden 
than a French Garden.

Otherwise, their "ICANN II" looks an useless yet a pleasant and probably 
expensive Grand-dadyKarten. It also permits the Internet to survive in not 
hurting too much the "technical aspects [a cleaned IANA]". This looks quite 
good to me. It will not prevent the innovation to circumvent them. Thank 
you Joe, I said do what you want but do not hurt the DNS.

1. the gTLD have their own gTLD Trade Association. Great they may survive.
2. the ccTLD Alliance is helped into structuring, good. This way they may 
develop, not pay the ICANN if they want (they have their seat and no more 
NC vote to pay for).
3. the TLDA will may be knock at the door for a seat, or will develop 
peacefully independently
4. RIRs will continue their business the discreet way they want
5. Protocols will be forgotten, so they will be free to develop elsewhere - 
ex. ITU-I
6. the TAC will be delegated to pros, under a bid by the ICANN, I am 
obviously a candidate. ITU-ICANN could also be one, as the partnership I 
propose for years.
7. the BoD will write the ICP documents

The big issue now is the NomCom for those liking "democracy". I said there 
are three sources of legitimacy:
- - the USG for the legacy
- - the local communities, as ccTLDs are failing the job, Stuart said the Govs
- - the universal community, but they said an universal vote cannot be 
accomplished.

So they are now to find a complex multi-layers way to proceed to the ... 
@large election. IMHO it should not be too complex. There are may be 5000 
people concerned around the world, including 150 vocal and 1500 activists. 
They only have to have a 500 people congress with 50 of the activists. 
Jealousies, dismays and hopes of the non-chosen ones will kill the 
objections, hence the activists. Keeping them on some forums will provide a 
pool for nominees.

I suppose that such a NomCom Congress (actually the ICANN/GA that Joe does 
not want) includes the ccTLDs, the gTLDs, the Constituencies, delegates 
form the "GA" on a selection on nomination basis. Absolutely not 
democratic, but humanly lethal.

I really think this plan perfect .. they will also waste so much time in 
implementing it....

jfc

PS. By the way what is really the mission and the impact of the Staff? and 
who is going to be the true boss? Louis Touton? Then, may-be, the plan is 
not that perfect :-)

- --=======3BD47EEA=======--

- --
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 #1252
*************************