Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1260
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, June 5 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1260

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 22:20:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Redelegation issues

[cc's trimmed]

What to do depends on lots of things I don't know.  First, what the
current delegate actually wants us to do once the the law is passed (as
opposed to what he says ex ante).  Second, what the local community wants.
Those are critical facts. Also potentially relevant is what the rest of
the ccTLD community wants.

There's no need to rush to do anything.  If there's a redelegation request
to IANA it should be published when received (something IANA should always
do, but sadly doesn't do), and discussed in the open.  

On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> Although I value your ideas and decisions, in this case it might be more
> interesting, especially for the immediate consequences, what the
> administrators of the following nameservers for ZA do:
> 
> *za.                     2D IN NS        AUTH00.NS.UU.NET.
> za.                     2D IN NS        UCTHPX.UCT.AC.za.
> *za.                     2D IN NS        MUNNARI.OZ.AU.
> *za.                     2D IN NS        NS.EU.NET.
> *za.                     2D IN NS        FLAG.EP.NET.
> *za.                     2D IN NS        RAIN.PSG.COM.
> za.                     2D IN NS        APIES.FRD.AC.za.
> za.                     2D IN NS        HIPPO.RU.AC.za.
> 
> Those marked * (5 out of 8) are not even _near_ South Africa...
> 
> > All this is of course separate from the question of what those of us
> > outside SA should do if this project goes forward; my point here is purely
> > that we have legal and moral freedom of action, not to suggest either that
> > the situation is anything like the torture hypo, nor that a particular
> > reaction is necessarily the correct one.
> 
> So, what should be our position, and more importantly, of those that run
> the above mentioned servers, and the root zone (ICANN, USG)?
> 
> 

- -- 
		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: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 22:33:02 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

> stability of the Internet, responsibility and service to the
> Internet users.

From the viewpoint of a U.S. corporation, i.e. ICANN, an over-riding
consideration is obedience to the law.  We have, for example, an economic
embargo of Libya (.ly)in effect in the United States. We also have embargoes
against Myanmar (.mm), Iran (.ir), North Korea (.kp not delegated), and Cuba
(.cu), among others.

Quite frankly, if ICANN staff are negotiating ccTLD contracts with these
countries, then they had better get a license from the U.S. Treasury, or
they should be arrested and imprisoned.

- --
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: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 22:30:41 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] NCDNHC losing voting rights?

Harold Feld has submitted the commentary below to the Council list.  At issue 
is whether the Non-Commercial Constituency will (by virtue of a budget 
committee decision) lose their right to vote in the Names Council.  The 
Committee meets tomorrow on this matter.

I wanted to address in advance of our call some of the 
arguments that I have heard pertaining to the non-commercial
response to the show cause.

First, to refresh everyone on the sequence of events.  

The NCC has attempted to comply with the assesment of fees.
Because the NCC has no central body for collection of fees,
the NCC asked the ICANN secretariat to collect the individual 
dues paid by members.  The NCC Adcom believed that this would
be th most efficient mechanism, because the NCC had no othe means of
collecting fees.

the arrangement proved cumbersome.  The ICANN Secretariat can only 
accept payment in US dollars.  this proved a hardship for many
of the NCC members.  Many of the NCC members do not have ready
access to US dollars, and must pay a fee to convert local 
currency into U.S. dollars or to transfer money out of 
their home country.  Administrative problems futher complicated
matters.  these poblems wer aggravated by the inexperience of the
NCC Adcom, none of whom had experience in such matters and all of
whom were thus forced to make best efforts at "on the job
training."

Despite these technical difficulties, the NCC made best efforts 
to satisfy the fee assesment. Adcom sent invoices, and made 
payment of membership fees a condition of voting in the NCC 
elections.

despite these best efforts, the NCC has been unable to satisfy the
NC fees assesed.  Accordingly, the DNSO secretariate transmitted a 
letter requiring the NCC to show cause why its voting rights in
NC should not be suspended.

The NCC Adcom submitted a timely response.  The essence of the response
is that th NCC has done the best it can to satisfy its obligations
to the NC.  As a practical matter, however, it is impossible for the NCC
to comply.  Its members are too poor to provide the necessary funding.  
while some members of the NCC have greater resources than others,
even the larger organizations do not have the resources to "fill the gap."

It therefore lies with the NC to decide whether it wishes to disenfranchise 
noncommercial interests on a permanent basis because they cannot
"pull their weight."  And the disenfranchisement would be permanent,
because the NCC cannot hope to raise the necessary money.  Not now or 
ever.

NCC continues to invoice its "deadbeat" members and to collect a steady 
trickle
of dues.  These are promptly passed from the ICANN Secretariate to the DNSO
Secretariate.  We have investigated possible foundation funding.  None exists.
I have convassed the universe of U.S. foundations that might fund the NCC.
All have refused.

This in part has to do with the nature of foundation funding (I can speak from
personal experience only to the United states, but my colleagues outside the
U.S. inform me that no money exists for this purpose in non-U.S. foundations
either).  Foundations rarely, if ever, fund open-ended "dependencies" of this
nature.  Foundations usually fund tax-exempt entities to erform specific
projects with a concrete result at the end. e.g., produce a study on the 
global
"digital divide" or wire an impoverished community.

Only two U.S. foundations have funded any ICANN or general "Internet 
Governance"
work, Markle and Ford.  Both have *cut back* funding.  I have spoken with
representatives of both organizations and they have informed me that even the
current funding for travel to ICANN meetings will be discontinued.

As an aside, let me address the statement I have heard from others: the 
non-coms
find the money to come to ICANN meetings and stay at the ICANN meeting hotel 
so
they can pay more money for dues.  Most non-coms came to ICANN meetings by
virtue of the Ford-Markle funding to the Salzburg Seminar, which paid for 
travel
and accomodations for non-coms.  that money could NOT be repurposed or spent 
on
anything other than travel and accomodations.  Salzburg made a decision (a
crrect one, I believe) to place non-coms funded at the center of the action 
and
thus housed them at the ICANN designated hotel.

In any event, even this money is gone.  As a result, I may add, there will be
almost no Non-commercial physical presence at Bucharest.  Only by remote
participation will most non-coms be able to provide input.

So there is no money, and there will not be any new money.  We have only what 
we
can wring from our members, who have frankly given all they can afford to give
(and in some cases, more than they can afford, because ICANN participation is
important to them).  the Budget Committee, and the NC, must therefore decide 
if
it values the contributions by the NCC sufficiently to waive the remaining
amount due.

In this reard, let me address a second objection i have heard to finding our
response to the show cause sufficeint: that the NC should "stick to its
policies" and, having adopted a policy, should stick with it.  to this I and 
the
NCC agree.  

the policy adopted, however, explicitly recognizes that there are times when 
it
is appropriate to waive the fees owed.  that is precisely the purpose of a 
"show
cause" proceeding.

deciding that we have shown sufficient cause, therefore, does no violence to 
the
rules.  it does not create any exception, or call for any modification of
anything.  rather, it is a simple application of the existing rule to the
specific case: the NC finds that the NCC has shown adequate cause to excuse 
its
non-payment of remaining dues.

I have argued before, and will do so again, that non-commercial stakeholders 
are
a vital and necessary interest.  many of us represent universities and other
basic research institutions that support advances in the Internet technology. 
Others are leaders in their local internet communities, providing training and
connectivity for their countries' most impoverished citizens.

In addition, we bring a diversity of view point, and one which adds great
legitimacy to the ICANN debate.  ICANN's critics have often charged that it is
captured by special interests.  the presence of the non-commercial 
consticuency
as ful participating members helps to negate that charge.  Given the 
trememdous
interest in international organizations generally to ensure that 
multi-national
processes engae "civil society" interests, the presence of the NCC does much 
to
reasure governments and citizens that ICANN will consider all points of view.

By contrast, disenfranchising the NCC will add fuel to the fire.  especially 
at
a critical juncture such as this, it is imperitive that all voices participate
equally and, more importantly, be perceived by the world as participating 
equally.

If nothing else, I beg that the Budget Committee (and NC members generally)
consider the damage to the ongoing ICANN reform process if the NCC is
disenfranchised at this critical time.  Not only will the NC ad ICANN lack the
full and diverse input of the NCC.  the absence of th NCC will cast a shadow
over ICANN reform generally.  Critics will allege that exclusion of the
non-commercial voices excluded a vital segment of the community, and to the
benefit of "special interests".  Given that the ICANN reform process 
potentially
may require that all consticuencies, and the DNSO itself, may need to
reconstitute itself, forgiving the NCC the difference between what it has
collected and what it still owes will mae little difference in the long run.  
By
contrast, exclusion of the NCC can only have profoundly negative impacts on 
the
reform process.

Harold
Feld
- --
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: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 22:28:42 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

John and all assembly members,

John Berryhill wrote:

> > stability of the Internet, responsibility and service to the
> > Internet users.
>
> >From the viewpoint of a U.S. corporation, i.e. ICANN, an over-riding
> consideration is obedience to the law.  We have, for example, an economic
> embargo of Libya (.ly)in effect in the United States. We also have embargoes
> against Myanmar (.mm), Iran (.ir), North Korea (.kp not delegated), and Cuba
> (.cu), among others.
>
> Quite frankly, if ICANN staff are negotiating ccTLD contracts with these
> countries, then they had better get a license from the U.S. Treasury, or
> they should be arrested and imprisoned.

  I agree with you here John.  The problem is that presently the ICANN
staff has already broke several other laws as you well know.  As such,
they seem to be in the mode or of the opinion as to be above US
law.  Hence I doubt that the ICANN staff is at all concerned if they
are negotiating with any of the above listed ccTLD managers...

>
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 22:35:44 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NCDNHC losing voting rights?

Danny and all assembly members,

  It is clear that the ICANN secretariat is unfortunately, but
not surprising, looking for an excuse to remove the voting
rights of the NCC in any way it can and using a method
that is of questionable validity to do so...  This shows
to me anyway that the ICANN staff is in a very sad
state of public affairs and this "Saga" seems to be yet
another nail in ICANN's future political coffin.  A
rebid by DOC/NTIA is yet again justified by these
sorts of practices that are truly aimed at disenfranchisement.

[email-masked] wrote:

> Harold Feld has submitted the commentary below to the Council list.  At issue
> is whether the Non-Commercial Constituency will (by virtue of a budget
> committee decision) lose their right to vote in the Names Council.  The
> Committee meets tomorrow on this matter.
>
> I wanted to address in advance of our call some of the
> arguments that I have heard pertaining to the non-commercial
> response to the show cause.
>
> First, to refresh everyone on the sequence of events.
>
> The NCC has attempted to comply with the assesment of fees.
> Because the NCC has no central body for collection of fees,
> the NCC asked the ICANN secretariat to collect the individual
> dues paid by members.  The NCC Adcom believed that this would
> be th most efficient mechanism, because the NCC had no othe means of
> collecting fees.
>
> the arrangement proved cumbersome.  The ICANN Secretariat can only
> accept payment in US dollars.  this proved a hardship for many
> of the NCC members.  Many of the NCC members do not have ready
> access to US dollars, and must pay a fee to convert local
> currency into U.S. dollars or to transfer money out of
> their home country.  Administrative problems futher complicated
> matters.  these poblems wer aggravated by the inexperience of the
> NCC Adcom, none of whom had experience in such matters and all of
> whom were thus forced to make best efforts at "on the job
> training."
>
> Despite these technical difficulties, the NCC made best efforts
> to satisfy the fee assesment. Adcom sent invoices, and made
> payment of membership fees a condition of voting in the NCC
> elections.
>
> despite these best efforts, the NCC has been unable to satisfy the
> NC fees assesed.  Accordingly, the DNSO secretariate transmitted a
> letter requiring the NCC to show cause why its voting rights in
> NC should not be suspended.
>
> The NCC Adcom submitted a timely response.  The essence of the response
> is that th NCC has done the best it can to satisfy its obligations
> to the NC.  As a practical matter, however, it is impossible for the NCC
> to comply.  Its members are too poor to provide the necessary funding.
> while some members of the NCC have greater resources than others,
> even the larger organizations do not have the resources to "fill the gap."
>
> It therefore lies with the NC to decide whether it wishes to disenfranchise
> noncommercial interests on a permanent basis because they cannot
> "pull their weight."  And the disenfranchisement would be permanent,
> because the NCC cannot hope to raise the necessary money.  Not now or
> ever.
>
> NCC continues to invoice its "deadbeat" members and to collect a steady
> trickle
> of dues.  These are promptly passed from the ICANN Secretariate to the DNSO
> Secretariate.  We have investigated possible foundation funding.  None exists.
> I have convassed the universe of U.S. foundations that might fund the NCC.
> All have refused.
>
> This in part has to do with the nature of foundation funding (I can speak from
> personal experience only to the United states, but my colleagues outside the
> U.S. inform me that no money exists for this purpose in non-U.S. foundations
> either).  Foundations rarely, if ever, fund open-ended "dependencies" of this
> nature.  Foundations usually fund tax-exempt entities to erform specific
> projects with a concrete result at the end. e.g., produce a study on the
> global
> "digital divide" or wire an impoverished community.
>
> Only two U.S. foundations have funded any ICANN or general "Internet
> Governance"
> work, Markle and Ford.  Both have *cut back* funding.  I have spoken with
> representatives of both organizations and they have informed me that even the
> current funding for travel to ICANN meetings will be discontinued.
>
> As an aside, let me address the statement I have heard from others: the
> non-coms
> find the money to come to ICANN meetings and stay at the ICANN meeting hotel
> so
> they can pay more money for dues.  Most non-coms came to ICANN meetings by
> virtue of the Ford-Markle funding to the Salzburg Seminar, which paid for
> travel
> and accomodations for non-coms.  that money could NOT be repurposed or spent
> on
> anything other than travel and accomodations.  Salzburg made a decision (a
> crrect one, I believe) to place non-coms funded at the center of the action
> and
> thus housed them at the ICANN designated hotel.
>
> In any event, even this money is gone.  As a result, I may add, there will be
> almost no Non-commercial physical presence at Bucharest.  Only by remote
> participation will most non-coms be able to provide input.
>
> So there is no money, and there will not be any new money.  We have only what
> we
> can wring from our members, who have frankly given all they can afford to give
> (and in some cases, more than they can afford, because ICANN participation is
> important to them).  the Budget Committee, and the NC, must therefore decide
> if
> it values the contributions by the NCC sufficiently to waive the remaining
> amount due.
>
> In this reard, let me address a second objection i have heard to finding our
> response to the show cause sufficeint: that the NC should "stick to its
> policies" and, having adopted a policy, should stick with it.  to this I and
> the
> NCC agree.
>
> the policy adopted, however, explicitly recognizes that there are times when
> it
> is appropriate to waive the fees owed.  that is precisely the purpose of a
> "show
> cause" proceeding.
>
> deciding that we have shown sufficient cause, therefore, does no violence to
> the
> rules.  it does not create any exception, or call for any modification of
> anything.  rather, it is a simple application of the existing rule to the
> specific case: the NC finds that the NCC has shown adequate cause to excuse
> its
> non-payment of remaining dues.
>
> I have argued before, and will do so again, that non-commercial stakeholders
> are
> a vital and necessary interest.  many of us represent universities and other
> basic research institutions that support advances in the Internet technology.
> Others are leaders in their local internet communities, providing training and
> connectivity for their countries' most impoverished citizens.
>
> In addition, we bring a diversity of view point, and one which adds great
> legitimacy to the ICANN debate.  ICANN's critics have often charged that it is
> captured by special interests.  the presence of the non-commercial
> consticuency
> as ful participating members helps to negate that charge.  Given the
> trememdous
> interest in international organizations generally to ensure that
> multi-national
> processes engae "civil society" interests, the presence of the NCC does much
> to
> reasure governments and citizens that ICANN will consider all points of view.
>
> By contrast, disenfranchising the NCC will add fuel to the fire.  especially
> at
> a critical juncture such as this, it is imperitive that all voices participate
> equally and, more importantly, be perceived by the world as participating
> equally.
>
> If nothing else, I beg that the Budget Committee (and NC members generally)
> consider the damage to the ongoing ICANN reform process if the NCC is
> disenfranchised at this critical time.  Not only will the NC ad ICANN lack the
> full and diverse input of the NCC.  the absence of th NCC will cast a shadow
> over ICANN reform generally.  Critics will allege that exclusion of the
> non-commercial voices excluded a vital segment of the community, and to the
> benefit of "special interests".  Given that the ICANN reform process
> potentially
> may require that all consticuencies, and the DNSO itself, may need to
> reconstitute itself, forgiving the NCC the difference between what it has
> collected and what it still owes will mae little difference in the long run.
> By
> contrast, exclusion of the NCC can only have profoundly negative impacts on
> the
> reform process.
>
> Harold
> Feld
> --
> 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: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 23:48:54 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP Task Force

Danny, 
Im on that task force and I too am waiting.

Since we went to the trouble of getting ICANN involved and so many
people responded to their site..

we kinda have to wait...the last comments I heard from anyone on the
TF...were to the effect that it seemed after Lynn's little bomb...that
there were more important things to worry about at the time...
not sure I agree...but thats what they felt.

In any event, absent the questionnaire results from ICANN...we cant do
much can we?

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Todd,
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts... I am hoping to get a response from one of the TF
> members (no one has even posted to the TF list in the last three weeks).  I
> get the feeling that they are asleep at the wheel without even the benefit of
> an elected Chair to guide their efforts... an election process was supposed
> to be over by May 26th, but I don't think they have even started any such
> elections.
> 
> The last status report that I noted indicated that the former Chair had gone
> thorough half of the summaries she had received and hoped to have a document
> for all to review in the next one or two weeks (that was seven weeks ago).
> She was still awaiting the responses from the questionnaire posted on the
> ICANN website, and had received an email from Louis Touton indicating that he
> should be forwarding those in the not too distant future.
> 
> This begs the question, is this TF still waiting for the ICANN staff to do
> its job?  I've got no answers.  Maybe someone on the TF can bring us up to
> speed...
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 23:05:40 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

Let me make sure that my take is very clear on the issue of ccTLDs.

ICANN keep you infested hands off and let the sovereigns run their own show.

You have no business interfering with sovereigns and need to stay the hell out.

Sell a connectivity service and shut up.

Is that clear enough?

Sincerely,
Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> John and all assembly members,
>
> John Berryhill wrote:
>
> > > stability of the Internet, responsibility and service to the
> > > Internet users.
> >
> > >From the viewpoint of a U.S. corporation, i.e. ICANN, an over-riding
> > consideration is obedience to the law.  We have, for example, an economic
> > embargo of Libya (.ly)in effect in the United States. We also have embargoes
> > against Myanmar (.mm), Iran (.ir), North Korea (.kp not delegated), and Cuba
> > (.cu), among others.
> >
> > Quite frankly, if ICANN staff are negotiating ccTLD contracts with these
> > countries, then they had better get a license from the U.S. Treasury, or
> > they should be arrested and imprisoned.
>
>   I agree with you here John.  The problem is that presently the ICANN
> staff has already broke several other laws as you well know.  As such,
> they seem to be in the mode or of the opinion as to be above US
> law.  Hence I doubt that the ICANN staff is at all concerned if they
> are negotiating with any of the above listed ccTLD managers...
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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

- --
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: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 23:52:37 -0700
From: "Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

Eric, now which ccTLD you said you represnt or in charge of?

John, if we go by your treasury argument, then at least the leading 25 .com
registrars are already in violation of the law by selling thousands of names to
citizens of Iraq & Libya. Do a whois query and you will find out for yourself.

Jeff, can you please be more specific to the laws that ICANN staff broke as you
do mention in your email!

In my personal opinion, the role and interaction of ICANN is no different than
that of communications companies providing long distance services to the
countries you mention here, isn't it?

Regards,

Asaad Alnajjar
CEO Millennium Inc  ( Los Angeles, CA, USA )
AINC Executive Director

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>; "Elisabeth Porteneuve"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

> Let me make sure that my take is very clear on the issue of ccTLDs.
>
> ICANN keep you infested hands off and let the sovereigns run their own show.
>
> You have no business interfering with sovereigns and need to stay the hell
out.
>
> Sell a connectivity service and shut up.
>
> Is that clear enough?
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > John and all assembly members,
> >
> > John Berryhill wrote:
> >
> > > > stability of the Internet, responsibility and service to the
> > > > Internet users.
> > >
> > > >From the viewpoint of a U.S. corporation, i.e. ICANN, an over-riding
> > > consideration is obedience to the law.  We have, for example, an economic
> > > embargo of Libya (.ly)in effect in the United States. We also have
embargoes
> > > against Myanmar (.mm), Iran (.ir), North Korea (.kp not delegated), and
Cuba
> > > (.cu), among others.
> > >
> > > Quite frankly, if ICANN staff are negotiating ccTLD contracts with these
> > > countries, then they had better get a license from the U.S. Treasury, or
> > > they should be arrested and imprisoned.
> >
> >   I agree with you here John.  The problem is that presently the ICANN
> > staff has already broke several other laws as you well know.  As such,
> > they seem to be in the mode or of the opinion as to be above US
> > law.  Hence I doubt that the ICANN staff is at all concerned if they
> > are negotiating with any of the above listed ccTLD managers...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 03:20:13 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

> John, if we go by your treasury argument, then at least the
> leading 25 .com
> registrars are already in violation of the law by selling
> thousands of names to
> citizens of Iraq & Libya. Do a whois query and you will find out
> for yourself.

That is correct, as we have discussed before Mr. Alnajjar.  For example,
Global Domains International provides domain registration for iraqtv.ws,
which is operated by the Iraqi SCIS to broadcast Iraq's satellite television
service.  Technical support for this Iraqi government operation is provided
by Akamai.

The Iraqi government recently had to move uruklink.net from Register.com,
through a progression of US registrars, and ultimately to a Swedish
registrar.  That Swedish registrar, however, is now in violation of the
relevant Swedish regulations implementing the EU version of the UN Security
Council resolutions relating to trade with Iraq.

> In my personal opinion, the role and interaction of ICANN is no
> different than
> that of communications companies providing long distance services to the
> countries you mention here, isn't it?

Your personal opinion differs with the law.  OFAC regulations general
contain an exemption for telecommunication connectivity services.
Additionally, there are countervailing treaty obligations relating to
telephonic communication services.

A domain name registration is a commercial service contract that is not
required for telecommunication connectivity.

Although the files relating to ICANN's negotiations with foreign governments
are among those for which ICANN imposes certain access conditions upon its
directors, the bottom line is that ICANN is not a telecommunication service
provider and is not covered by the relevant exemptions for the services
which ICANN purports to be negotiating with the respective governments of
these countries.

If they have obtained a license from the US Treasury department, they
certainly have not disclosed that fact.

- --
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, 05 Jun 2002 22:13:02 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 22:33:02 -0400, "John Berryhill"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>> stability of the Internet, responsibility and service to the
>> Internet users.
>
>From the viewpoint of a U.S. corporation, i.e. ICANN, an over-riding
>consideration is obedience to the law.  We have, for example, an economic
>embargo of Libya (.ly)in effect in the United States. We also have embargoes
>against Myanmar (.mm), Iran (.ir), North Korea (.kp not delegated), and Cuba
>(.cu), among others.
>
>Quite frankly, if ICANN staff are negotiating ccTLD contracts with these
>countries, then they had better get a license from the U.S. Treasury, or
>they should be arrested and imprisoned.

Which is a good reason for ICANN not to be based in the US.

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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 03:44:08 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

Wednesday, June 05, 2002, 3:13:02 AM, DPF wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 22:33:02 -0400, "John Berryhill"
> <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>
>>> stability of the Internet, responsibility and service to the
>>> Internet users.
>>
>>From the viewpoint of a U.S. corporation, i.e. ICANN, an over-riding
>>consideration is obedience to the law.  We have, for example, an economic
>>embargo of Libya (.ly)in effect in the United States. We also have embargoes
>>against Myanmar (.mm), Iran (.ir), North Korea (.kp not delegated), and Cuba
>>(.cu), among others.
>>
>>Quite frankly, if ICANN staff are negotiating ccTLD contracts with these
>>countries, then they had better get a license from the U.S. Treasury, or
>>they should be arrested and imprisoned.

> Which is a good reason for ICANN not to be based in the US.

Not really.

No matter where ICANN is based there will be local laws ICANN must
abide by, and there will always be some that people will make out as
being a reason why ICANN shouldn't be based there.

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:17:27 +0200
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf agenda, 06 June 2002

ICANN/DNSO

         DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 06 June 2002 - agenda

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

Coordinated Universal Time UTC 13:00 - see below for local times

Philip Sheppard will be chairing the NC teleconference.
Scheduled time for meeting - 120 mins.

PROPOSED NAMES COUNCIL AGENDA June 06, 2002

1.Adoption of minutes of last call.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020529.NCteleconf-minutes.html

2. Discussion on nominating committee proposals - from ICANN Evolution
committee and others
    - concept of a committee to nominate SOME board seats
    - concept of such a committee to nominate chair/members of the PDBs
    - composition of a nominating committee
    - ex officio Board seats for PDB chairs and others

3. AOB

Note:

Proposed next teleconference : Monday June 17, at 15.00 Paris time.
See http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-calendar.html

(6:00 LA, 9:00 New York, 15:00 Paris, Japan/ Korea 22:00, 23:00 Melbourne)
Local time between April and October, Summer in the Northern Hemisphere
- ------------------------------------------------------------

 Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         13:00
  ------------------------------------------------------------
  California, USA                            UTC-8+1DST   6:00
  Monterrey, Mexico                          UTC-6+1DST   8:00
  Lima, Peru                                 UTC-5+0DST   8:00
  Washington DC, USA                   (EST) UTC-5+1DST   9:00
  St.Thomas, Virgin Islands                  UTC-4+0DST   9:00
  Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST   10:00
  London, United Kingdom                     UTC+0+1DST  14:00
  Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
  Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
  Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
  Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
  Jerusalem, Israel                          UTC+2+1DST  16:00
  Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST  22:00
  Tokyo, Japan                               UTC+9+0DST  22:00
  Melbourne, Australia                      UTC+10+0DST  23:00
  Auckland, New Zealand                     UTC+12+0DST  01:00 (Friday)
  ------------------------------------------------------------
  The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October (with some exceptions)
  ------------------------------------------------------------
  For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

The full participants are the 21 NC members as listed in
http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html,
DNSO Secretariat and ICANN Officers.

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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1260
*************************