Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1275
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, June 16 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1275

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 18:18:06 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech post on "self-regulation's end"

Declan and all,

  Of course, many of us that have been around for awhile, like myself,
recognize that old Joe had to put some sort of spin on this.  That's
what he gets paid to do after all, and handsomely to boot.  Hence
giving his comments of this nature much credence or consideration
would be a huge mistake or at least quite misleading...  Same Ding-Dong,
Sing-Song...

Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Previous Politech message:
>
> "Michael Geist on ICANN, Congress, end of 'self-regulation'"
> http://www.politechbot.com/p-03653.html
>
> Joe Sims is ICANN's chief outside counsel.
>
> -Declan
>
> ---
>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Michael Geist's column
> From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:03:28 -0400
>
> Of course, Geist has it all wrong.  I hope you will consider publishing
> this response.
>
> The notion that not enough happens at ICANN in public, and that the answer
> to ICANN's problems is more transparency, illustrates a profound lack of
> understanding about what ICANN really does, and how it really does
> it.  Prof. Geist is not the only one that doesn't get it, but since he has
> the ability to publish columns, it is probably worth while trying to
> correct his misunderstanding.
>
> Contrary to Prof. Geist's assertions, ICANN is not a self-regulatory
> body.  It was never intended to be a self-regulatory body.  It was intended
> to be a forum for the possible discovery of consensus solutions to global
> issues related to the DNS -- a way, quite frankly, for national governments
> to find a place for the resolution of global DNS issues that did not
> require a new treaty organization.  It is true that its original structure
> called for half its Board to be selected by a general At Large membership
> of some kind, but that was certainly not the consensus view of the Internet
> community at that time.  Prof. Geist, having not been part of the
> discussions with the US Government that produced that construction, is
> undoubtedly unaware of the fact that no one involved in that decision, and
> I include those in the US Government (feel free to ask them) was convinced
> that such an approach was really workable.  The ICANN organizers wanted to
> insert the words "if feasible;" the US Government position at the time, for
> reasons I leave to the reader to imagine, was "we'll figure out how to do
> it later."  The then brand-new Board of ICANN, without the assistence of
> Jon Postel who had died a month earlier, acquiesced to this position,
> notwithstanding a quite clear concern that it might not be possible to make
> it work.  In hindsight, I am quite sure most regret this decision.
>
> We now have almost 4 years of experience by which to test the concepts on
> which the original construction rested, and we actually know some things
> that we did not know then.  We know that the notion of global on-line
> elections is fraught with problems that are too complicated for ICANN to be
> on the bleeding edge on innovation in this area.  We know that there is no
> consensus in the ICANN community on exactly how the public interest should
> be represented in ICANN's structure, notwithstanding the insistence of
> those like Prof. Geist that there is only one possible solution.  We know
> that part of the reason there is no consensus is that those who insist on
> direct elections of Board members have refused to consider any other
> alternative way of representing the public interest; this religious
> approach is not conducive to compromise or consensus.
>
> We also know that a purely private organization, without the support and
> involvement of governments from around the world, will not be able to carry
> out thes mission assigned to ICANN (if you believe that mission requires
> the agreed participation of all the relevant infrastructure
> providers).  ICANN has no guns, and no soldiers; it has no coercive
> power.  It can succeed only if the relevant portions of the community
> voluntarily agree that they want to participate and make it succeed.  To
> date, that has not happened.  We can argue all we want about why it has not
> happened, but it is clear that the reason is not the failure to hold
> on-line elections.  The fact is that the root server operators, the address
> registries, and the ccTLD registries must be persuaded to come to the ICANN
> table, and it will not help that process to make ICANN a less stable, less
> predictable organization.
>
> Finally, we know (or at least some of us strongly believe) that the path to
> ICANN success is an appropriate public/private partnership, with the
> private sector and global governments working together within an ICANN
> structured to accept input from all but also able to make effective
> decisions in a timely way.  We are clearly on the path to such an ICANN,
> and I hope we will take another step toward that goal at the meeting in
> Bucharest later this month.
>
> The notion that government interest in ICANN is heightened by the failure
> to adopt some form of global elections is laughably naive.  Governments are
> properly interested in ICANN because the Internet is increasingly critical
> to the well-being, social and commercial, of their citizens, and because
> what ICANN is responsible for is critical to the continued stable operation
> of the Internet.  This would be true whether all or none of ICANN's
> directors were elected by the general public.  And it is this fact that is
> driving the process of gaining the proper level of government participation
> in ICANN, nothing else.  This is the real world; Prof. Geist insists on
> occupying some academic construct of a world.  This longing for some
> utopian construct is not useful in trying to reform ICANN into a body that
> does reflect, as best it can be done, the views and concerns of the entire
> Internet provider and user community.
>
> Joe Sims
> Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> Washington, D.C. 20001
> Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
>
> ==============================
> The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
> or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information. It is
> intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not
> an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by replying
> to this message and then delete it from your system. Use, dissemination,
> distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is
> not authorized and may be unlawful.
> ==============================
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
> You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
> To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 07:49:40 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech post on  "self-regulation's  end"

Gentlemen,

This is in fact a very useful thread.

One of the finest diplomats of this century is regarded in history as a
brute.
His position was stated simply "Walk softly and carry a big stick"

In our case our stick must be large public opinion and large membership,
proper procedure and representativeness - The prongs of the white paper
which ICANN cannot afford.
But at this point that is questionable and so we have been using sharp
wit and pointed questions which are usually answered by plausibly
deniable responses by plausibly deniable persons such as Mr. Sims.

But I caution Ron.  In the Western legal evidentiary parlance they have
a term "passive admission", which essentially requires any horrendous
allegation or act be met with an equal horrendous denial or act, or it
is admission that the allegation is valid.  Yes I am speaking of
violence, but of the verbal kind which Mr. Henderson engaged in with Mr.
Sims.

Ron it would appear you miss two vital points;
We are not dealing with nice people here.
We are the only factor which has a chance of helping our dotcommoners
maintain accessibility.
When I say we I refer to those of us who actively participate in
blocking the unconscionable conduct of a monopolistic grouping of US
centric Corporations.
WLS is a perfect example of out pricing dotcommoners.

Some of what we need to do here is extremely uncomfortable, but fine
folks like Mr. Henderson have to keep doing it, in the face of such
horrendous activity flowing from the top down.

Sincerely,
Eric

Richard Henderson wrote:

> Thanks for your comments Ron
>
> My issue is with ICANN, and in the face of their discredited administration,
> I reserve the right to be confrontational - which, in this case, includes
> posing questions they don't want to discuss.
>
> I have no issue with you Ron, or your right to dislike my style.
>
> Indeed I agree with many of your views, and I would not be sorry if you were
> elected onto the panel in place of me.
>
> I genuinely wish you well, understand what you are saying here, and share
> many of your expressed concerns.
>
> However, with respect, I shall continue to challenge ICANN in a blunt and
> straightforward way. I believe many people regard them as jerks and
> fuckwits.
>
> I would not disagree with that analysis.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Richard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ron Sherwood <[email-masked]>
> To: Richard Henderson <[email-masked]>; Jeff Williams
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; General Assembly of the DNSO <[email-masked]>;
> atlarge discuss list <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 1:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech
> post on "self-regulation's end"
>
> > Good morning, Richard:
> >
> >     I do not question the validity or "reasonableness" of your questions
> to
> > Mr Sims.  I do, however, question your delivery of those questions.
> >
> >     I am a new member of this group, introduced by a prime mover who is no
> > longer in good health and unable to participate.  I have been primarily a
> > lurker, attempting to get up to speed on the endeavors of this at-large
> > group.  The arcane references to people and past events, known and
> > understood only by "insiders" has made the aquisition of related knowledge
> > somewhat difficult at times.  However, I have learned over the past few
> > months that there are members who have certain defined and valuable skill
> > sets, and others who have very different skill sets.  Your skill set, sir,
> > does not include diplomacy.
> >
> >     Any reasonable person reading your letters would recoil from the
> > aggressive and often overtly rude wording.  Why should anyone be inclined
> to
> > respond to questions, even serious questions, when they are presented in
> > such an aggressive manner?
> >
> >     It is my humble opinion that our organization is in very real need of
> a
> > spokesperson representative who can carry our dialog to others in the
> manner
> > in which all successful international diplomacy is conducted.  We do need
> > leaders who have the technical knowledge, the vision and the mindset that
> > defines our organization as being representative of the global user.  But,
> > we also need leaders who are managers (to bring our organization to
> > functionality), marketing experts (to grow the membership to be truly
> > representative of users on a global scale), and diplomatic communicators
> (to
> > present our case to ICANN, to government representatives, to other
> > organizations and to the media. To allow our voice to be heard with
> > respect).
> >
> >     While I respect and support your freedom to speak to whomever you wish
> > as an individual, I do not think your communication skills are suitable
> for
> > representing me as a member of this organization.
> >
> > Sincerely, Ron Sherwood
> >
> > --- Original Message -----
> > From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: <[email-masked]>; "General Assembly of the DNSO"
> > <[email-masked]>; "atlarge discuss list" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 9:32 PM
> > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech
> > post on "self-regulation's end"
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I refer you to the reasonable questions and concerns sent to Dan
> Halloran
> > 35
> > > days ago, which he has still not had the courtesy to acknowledge, let
> > alone
> > > answer, presumably because the ICANN Board would prefer not to answer
> > > difficult (but reasonable and relevant) questions.
> > >
> > > Mr Sims,
> > >
> > > You don't have to be "religious" and zealous for global democracy to
> > assert
> > > that ICANN lacks responsiveness to its stakeholders. If you claim any
> > > credibility at all, then kindly get me rational answers to my fair and
> > > honest questions.
> > >
> > > But no, I guess you will not even reply, because the general public have
> > > found in practice that the ICANN establishment skulks away and hides
> when
> > > challenging questions (relevant to stakeholders) are raised.
> > >
> > > Will you reply? Will ICANN acknowledge my relevant questions? Prove me
> > > wrong! Get me some answers!
> > >
> > > Otherwise, kindly don't lecture us on ICANN at all, or create a
> > smokescreen
> > > of "global democracy lunatics" to hide behind. I do not have to be a
> > lunatic
> > > to request openness, responsiveness, courtesy and transparency. But that
> > is
> > > what ICANN (and I suggest possibly you - we shall see...) lack.
> > >
> > > Oh, and one other thing... whether ICANN is or is not self-regulatory,
> it
> > > presides over a system which is... registrars who regulate themselves,
> and
> > > who commit fraud, and yet remain accredited by ICANN.
> > >
> > > Richard Henderson
> > > www.theInternetChallenge.com
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
> > > To: <[email-masked]>
> > > Cc: <[email-masked]>; General Assembly of the DNSO
> > <[email-masked]>;
> > > atlarge discuss list <[email-masked]>
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 2:18 AM
> > > Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech
> post
> > > on "self-regulation's end"
> > >
> > >
> > > > Declan and all,
> > > >
> > > >   Of course, many of us that have been around for awhile, like myself,
> > > > recognize that old Joe had to put some sort of spin on this.  That's
> > > > what he gets paid to do after all, and handsomely to boot.  Hence
> > > > giving his comments of this nature much credence or consideration
> > > > would be a huge mistake or at least quite misleading...  Same
> Ding-Dong,
> > > > Sing-Song...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Declan McCullagh wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Previous Politech message:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Michael Geist on ICANN, Congress, end of 'self-regulation'"
> > > > > http://www.politechbot.com/p-03653.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Joe Sims is ICANN's chief outside counsel.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Declan
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > To: [email-masked]
> > > > > Subject: Michael Geist's column
> > > > > From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
> > > > > Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:03:28 -0400
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, Geist has it all wrong.  I hope you will consider
> > publishing
> > > > > this response.
> > > > >
> > > > > The notion that not enough happens at ICANN in public, and that the
> > > answer
> > > > > to ICANN's problems is more transparency, illustrates a profound
> lack
> > of
> > > > > understanding about what ICANN really does, and how it really does
> > > > > it.  Prof. Geist is not the only one that doesn't get it, but since
> he
> > > has
> > > > > the ability to publish columns, it is probably worth while trying to
> > > > > correct his misunderstanding.
> > > > >
> > > > > Contrary to Prof. Geist's assertions, ICANN is not a self-regulatory
> > > > > body.  It was never intended to be a self-regulatory body.  It was
> > > intended
> > > > > to be a forum for the possible discovery of consensus solutions to
> > > global
> > > > > issues related to the DNS -- a way, quite frankly, for national
> > > governments
> > > > > to find a place for the resolution of global DNS issues that did not
> > > > > require a new treaty organization.  It is true that its original
> > > structure
> > > > > called for half its Board to be selected by a general At Large
> > > membership
> > > > > of some kind, but that was certainly not the consensus view of the
> > > Internet
> > > > > community at that time.  Prof. Geist, having not been part of the
> > > > > discussions with the US Government that produced that construction,
> is
> > > > > undoubtedly unaware of the fact that no one involved in that
> decision,
> > > and
> > > > > I include those in the US Government (feel free to ask them) was
> > > convinced
> > > > > that such an approach was really workable.  The ICANN organizers
> > wanted
> > > to
> > > > > insert the words "if feasible;" the US Government position at the
> > time,
> > > for
> > > > > reasons I leave to the reader to imagine, was "we'll figure out how
> to
> > > do
> > > > > it later."  The then brand-new Board of ICANN, without the
> assistence
> > of
> > > > > Jon Postel who had died a month earlier, acquiesced to this
> position,
> > > > > notwithstanding a quite clear concern that it might not be possible
> to
> > > make
> > > > > it work.  In hindsight, I am quite sure most regret this decision.
> > > > >
> > > > > We now have almost 4 years of experience by which to test the
> concepts
> > > on
> > > > > which the original construction rested, and we actually know some
> > things
> > > > > that we did not know then.  We know that the notion of global
> on-line
> > > > > elections is fraught with problems that are too complicated for
> ICANN
> > to
> > > be
> > > > > on the bleeding edge on innovation in this area.  We know that there
> > is
> > > no
> > > > > consensus in the ICANN community on exactly how the public interest
> > > should
> > > > > be represented in ICANN's structure, notwithstanding the insistence
> of
> > > > > those like Prof. Geist that there is only one possible solution.  We
> > > know
> > > > > that part of the reason there is no consensus is that those who
> insist
> > > on
> > > > > direct elections of Board members have refused to consider any other
> > > > > alternative way of representing the public interest; this religious
> > > > > approach is not conducive to compromise or consensus.
> > > > >
> > > > > We also know that a purely private organization, without the support
> > and
> > > > > involvement of governments from around the world, will not be able
> to
> > > carry
> > > > > out thes mission assigned to ICANN (if you believe that mission
> > requires
> > > > > the agreed participation of all the relevant infrastructure
> > > > > providers).  ICANN has no guns, and no soldiers; it has no coercive
> > > > > power.  It can succeed only if the relevant portions of the
> community
> > > > > voluntarily agree that they want to participate and make it succeed.
> > To
> > > > > date, that has not happened.  We can argue all we want about why it
> > has
> > > not
> > > > > happened, but it is clear that the reason is not the failure to hold
> > > > > on-line elections.  The fact is that the root server operators, the
> > > address
> > > > > registries, and the ccTLD registries must be persuaded to come to
> the
> > > ICANN
> > > > > table, and it will not help that process to make ICANN a less
> stable,
> > > less
> > > > > predictable organization.
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally, we know (or at least some of us strongly believe) that the
> > path
> > > to
> > > > > ICANN success is an appropriate public/private partnership, with the
> > > > > private sector and global governments working together within an
> ICANN
> > > > > structured to accept input from all but also able to make effective
> > > > > decisions in a timely way.  We are clearly on the path to such an
> > ICANN,
> > > > > and I hope we will take another step toward that goal at the meeting
> > in
> > > > > Bucharest later this month.
> > > > >
> > > > > The notion that government interest in ICANN is heightened by the
> > > failure
> > > > > to adopt some form of global elections is laughably naive.
> > Governments
> > > are
> > > > > properly interested in ICANN because the Internet is increasingly
> > > critical
> > > > > to the well-being, social and commercial, of their citizens, and
> > because
> > > > > what ICANN is responsible for is critical to the continued stable
> > > operation
> > > > > of the Internet.  This would be true whether all or none of ICANN's
> > > > > directors were elected by the general public.  And it is this fact
> > that
> > > is
> > > > > driving the process of gaining the proper level of government
> > > participation
> > > > > in ICANN, nothing else.  This is the real world; Prof. Geist insists
> > on
> > > > > occupying some academic construct of a world.  This longing for some
> > > > > utopian construct is not useful in trying to reform ICANN into a
> body
> > > that
> > > > > does reflect, as best it can be done, the views and concerns of the
> > > entire
> > > > > Internet provider and user community.
> > > > >
> > > > > Joe Sims
> > > > > Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> > > > > 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> > > > > Washington, D.C. 20001
> > > > > Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> > > > > Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> > > > > Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
> > > > >
> > > > > ==============================
> > > > > The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> > > > > information that may be confidential, be protected by the
> > > attorney-client
> > > > > or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public
> information.
> > It
> > > is
> > > > > intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you
> > are
> > > not
> > > > > an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
> > > replying
> > > > > to this message and then delete it from your system. Use,
> > dissemination,
> > > > > distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
> recipients
> > > is
> > > > > not authorized and may be unlawful.
> > > > > ==============================
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
> > > > > You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
> > > > > To subscribe to Politech:
> > http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> > > > > This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> > > > > Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > Like Politech? Make a donation here:
> > http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> For additional commands, 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: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 08:24:09 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Questions

I am of an unsettled mind when it comes to domain names.
I cannot really see them as a right but simply a commercial commodity.
I almost see email addresses as a right like a physical address and a right to
send and receive mail.
Clearly once you have established a commercial right in a thing it should not be
taken away lightly.
But if you look at the WLS closely it would appear that it's founding premise is
that someone owns them if they are not registered.  That someone being the
registry.  This may even be right in the case of a government run ccTLD where it
is viewed as a country resource.
But it cannot be right when it comes to dotCOM - Can it?

It would seem that the registry should just stabilize their system so that it is
consistent and then let appropriate market forces handle expiry.  It would seem
that our old argument must soon be settled in the fashion that a domain name is a
piece of property.

Sincerely,
Eric

Ellen Rony wrote:

> At 9:30 AM -0400 6/14/02, James Love wrote:
> >What would fix the WLS issue would be to have a period after a domain
> >expired, where anyone who wanted it could express intereset, and there would
> >be a fair lottery to see who got it.     And, at any point before the
> >lottery, the old domain holder should be able to get it back.
> >
> >Jamie
>
> I like the idea of a 30-to-60-day grace period.  It's a common business
> practice among insurance companies and providers of cable, telephone and
> other services. People miss payment deadlines due to oversight, travel, and
> mundane distractions.  Given what is at risk, a post-expiry date grace
> period makes sense.
>
> But why a post-grace period lottery?  Who would administer it?  What
> mechanisms would assure its accountability, fairness and timeliness?  Who
> would  be the registrant of record after the epiry date, if the registrant
> chooses not to renew? Who would get to claim the fees involved?  How would
> they be determined?  How would all registrars be assured equal access to
> WLS?  Would the process run in tandem with the registration procedure--a
> shared registry system for WLS requests.  Who would determine the rules
> that apply?
>
> Demand for domain names has slowed, and resale prices have softened.  More
> than 1 million domain names are available at auction.  Millions sit in
> virtual inventories of companies, organizations and individuals, unusued.
>
> IMHO, WLS adds an unnecessary layer of expense and complication atop the
> FCFS race and provides opportunity for internal abuse.  Nothing prevents a
> party from approaching the current registrant and expressing direct
> interest in acquiring the domain name.  Will that make the price go up?
> Maybe so, but surely no less than the registrant knowing that someone has
> paid for the privilege of waiting in line for it on the oft-remote chance
> the domain name becomes available.
>
> What is the problem the WLS proposes to solve?  Is it that cybersquatters
> and speculators currently have some technical advantage not available to
> ordinary folk, such as bots that scoop up expired names instantly?  Can
> such bots be prohibited?   Is it that people with genuine interest in a
> specific name want to be spared the time and expense of monitoring its
> availability?   Can this be accomplished without imposing additional
> expenses on those who are willing to do such monitoring on their own?
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Ellen Rony, Co-author         )/_    http://www.domainhandbook.com
> Domain Name Handbook         <" \      http://www.domainsleuth.biz
>                              /)  )                  [email-masked]
>                          ---/'-""---
>        The more people I meet, the more I like my cockatiel.
> --
> 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, 15 Jun 2002 16:58:20 -0400
From: "Ron Sherwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech post on  "self-regulation's  end"

Dear Richard and Eric:

    Thank you for your reasoned reply to my message. It was not meant to be
a personal indictment of any kind (although Richard could easily have taken
it to be so).  And, I am quite capable of matching the insult-fest if there
were a reason to do so.

    I do bow to your experience with the people with whom you are
corresponding. I do not have your history of personal contact with these
people and, if you have proof that the "in-your-face" attacks really work,
who am I to argue with success?

    My input is from a different perspective.  I joined this organization
believing that it was to represent those Internet users who had been
disenfranchised by the change in ICANN policy that eliminated existing
representation on the ICANN Board of Directors.  Over the past few months, I
have seen much internal bickering and name calling, personal attacks and
language that has painted a less than professional picture of the fledgling
organization. I have read many messages, the tone of which would discourage
potential members from ever joining, much less participating in, our work.

    It is my personal opinion that, if we are to grow from a few hundred
members with a couple of dozen participants, to a million members with top
quality representation, we need to elevate the language of our official
communications to a level that will be taken seriously by other leaders, and
by the government and pseudo government representatives with whom we are
bound to deal.

    Using wit and pointed questions is great.  Walking softly while carrying
a big stick is admirable. And you may be sure that I am not one to allow my
words to be interpreted as "passive admission".

    However, aggressive, inflammatory, personal attacks are not the same as
using wit or walking softly.  And where such dialog is carried out in public
a public forum, the attacker is likely to lose support faster than the
attacked.

    Diplomacy is the art of carrying the big stick to your opponent with a
smile that your supporters (and your enemies) recognize as comfortable moral
superiority. The big stick that you carry is of greater influence if it is
known to be there, but is concealed beneath your cloak of cordiality.

Regards, Ron Sherwood

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Ron Sherwood" <[email-masked]>; "Jeff Williams"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
"General Assembly of the DNSO" <[email-masked]>; "atlarge discuss list"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to Politech
post on "self-regulation's end"

> Gentlemen,
>
> This is in fact a very useful thread.
>
> One of the finest diplomats of this century is regarded in history as a
> brute.
> His position was stated simply "Walk softly and carry a big stick"
>
> In our case our stick must be large public opinion and large membership,
> proper procedure and representativeness - The prongs of the white paper
> which ICANN cannot afford.
> But at this point that is questionable and so we have been using sharp
> wit and pointed questions which are usually answered by plausibly
> deniable responses by plausibly deniable persons such as Mr. Sims.
>
> But I caution Ron.  In the Western legal evidentiary parlance they have
> a term "passive admission", which essentially requires any horrendous
> allegation or act be met with an equal horrendous denial or act, or it
> is admission that the allegation is valid.  Yes I am speaking of
> violence, but of the verbal kind which Mr. Henderson engaged in with Mr.
> Sims.
>
> Ron it would appear you miss two vital points;
> We are not dealing with nice people here.
> We are the only factor which has a chance of helping our dotcommoners
> maintain accessibility.
> When I say we I refer to those of us who actively participate in
> blocking the unconscionable conduct of a monopolistic grouping of US
> centric Corporations.
> WLS is a perfect example of out pricing dotcommoners.
>
> Some of what we need to do here is extremely uncomfortable, but fine
> folks like Mr. Henderson have to keep doing it, in the face of such
> horrendous activity flowing from the top down.
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
>
> Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your comments Ron
> >
> > My issue is with ICANN, and in the face of their discredited
administration,
> > I reserve the right to be confrontational - which, in this case,
includes
> > posing questions they don't want to discuss.
> >
> > I have no issue with you Ron, or your right to dislike my style.
> >
> > Indeed I agree with many of your views, and I would not be sorry if you
were
> > elected onto the panel in place of me.
> >
> > I genuinely wish you well, understand what you are saying here, and
share
> > many of your expressed concerns.
> >
> > However, with respect, I shall continue to challenge ICANN in a blunt
and
> > straightforward way. I believe many people regard them as jerks and
> > fuckwits.
> >
> > I would not disagree with that analysis.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ron Sherwood <[email-masked]>
> > To: Richard Henderson <[email-masked]>; Jeff Williams
> > <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: <[email-masked]>; General Assembly of the DNSO
<[email-masked]>;
> > atlarge discuss list <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 1:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to
Politech
> > post on "self-regulation's end"
> >
> > > Good morning, Richard:
> > >
> > >     I do not question the validity or "reasonableness" of your
questions
> > to
> > > Mr Sims.  I do, however, question your delivery of those questions.
> > >
> > >     I am a new member of this group, introduced by a prime mover who
is no
> > > longer in good health and unable to participate.  I have been
primarily a
> > > lurker, attempting to get up to speed on the endeavors of this
at-large
> > > group.  The arcane references to people and past events, known and
> > > understood only by "insiders" has made the aquisition of related
knowledge
> > > somewhat difficult at times.  However, I have learned over the past
few
> > > months that there are members who have certain defined and valuable
skill
> > > sets, and others who have very different skill sets.  Your skill set,
sir,
> > > does not include diplomacy.
> > >
> > >     Any reasonable person reading your letters would recoil from the
> > > aggressive and often overtly rude wording.  Why should anyone be
inclined
> > to
> > > respond to questions, even serious questions, when they are presented
in
> > > such an aggressive manner?
> > >
> > >     It is my humble opinion that our organization is in very real need
of
> > a
> > > spokesperson representative who can carry our dialog to others in the
> > manner
> > > in which all successful international diplomacy is conducted.  We do
need
> > > leaders who have the technical knowledge, the vision and the mindset
that
> > > defines our organization as being representative of the global user.
But,
> > > we also need leaders who are managers (to bring our organization to
> > > functionality), marketing experts (to grow the membership to be truly
> > > representative of users on a global scale), and diplomatic
communicators
> > (to
> > > present our case to ICANN, to government representatives, to other
> > > organizations and to the media. To allow our voice to be heard with
> > > respect).
> > >
> > >     While I respect and support your freedom to speak to whomever you
wish
> > > as an individual, I do not think your communication skills are
suitable
> > for
> > > representing me as a member of this organization.
> > >
> > > Sincerely, Ron Sherwood
> > >
> > > --- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
> > > To: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> > > Cc: <[email-masked]>; "General Assembly of the DNSO"
> > > <[email-masked]>; "atlarge discuss list" <[email-masked]>
> > > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 9:32 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to
Politech
> > > post on "self-regulation's end"
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I refer you to the reasonable questions and concerns sent to Dan
> > Halloran
> > > 35
> > > > days ago, which he has still not had the courtesy to acknowledge,
let
> > > alone
> > > > answer, presumably because the ICANN Board would prefer not to
answer
> > > > difficult (but reasonable and relevant) questions.
> > > >
> > > > Mr Sims,
> > > >
> > > > You don't have to be "religious" and zealous for global democracy to
> > > assert
> > > > that ICANN lacks responsiveness to its stakeholders. If you claim
any
> > > > credibility at all, then kindly get me rational answers to my fair
and
> > > > honest questions.
> > > >
> > > > But no, I guess you will not even reply, because the general public
have
> > > > found in practice that the ICANN establishment skulks away and hides
> > when
> > > > challenging questions (relevant to stakeholders) are raised.
> > > >
> > > > Will you reply? Will ICANN acknowledge my relevant questions? Prove
me
> > > > wrong! Get me some answers!
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise, kindly don't lecture us on ICANN at all, or create a
> > > smokescreen
> > > > of "global democracy lunatics" to hide behind. I do not have to be a
> > > lunatic
> > > > to request openness, responsiveness, courtesy and transparency. But
that
> > > is
> > > > what ICANN (and I suggest possibly you - we shall see...) lack.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, and one other thing... whether ICANN is or is not
self-regulatory,
> > it
> > > > presides over a system which is... registrars who regulate
themselves,
> > and
> > > > who commit fraud, and yet remain accredited by ICANN.
> > > >
> > > > Richard Henderson
> > > > www.theInternetChallenge.com
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
> > > > To: <[email-masked]>
> > > > Cc: <[email-masked]>; General Assembly of the DNSO
> > > <[email-masked]>;
> > > > atlarge discuss list <[email-masked]>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 2:18 AM
> > > > Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Re: FC: ICANN attorney replies to
Politech
> > post
> > > > on "self-regulation's end"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Declan and all,
> > > > >
> > > > >   Of course, many of us that have been around for awhile, like
myself,
> > > > > recognize that old Joe had to put some sort of spin on this.
That's
> > > > > what he gets paid to do after all, and handsomely to boot.  Hence
> > > > > giving his comments of this nature much credence or consideration
> > > > > would be a huge mistake or at least quite misleading...  Same
> > Ding-Dong,
> > > > > Sing-Song...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Declan McCullagh wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Previous Politech message:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Michael Geist on ICANN, Congress, end of 'self-regulation'"
> > > > > > http://www.politechbot.com/p-03653.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joe Sims is ICANN's chief outside counsel.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Declan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To: [email-masked]
> > > > > > Subject: Michael Geist's column
> > > > > > From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
> > > > > > Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:03:28 -0400
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course, Geist has it all wrong.  I hope you will consider
> > > publishing
> > > > > > this response.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The notion that not enough happens at ICANN in public, and that
the
> > > > answer
> > > > > > to ICANN's problems is more transparency, illustrates a profound
> > lack
> > > of
> > > > > > understanding about what ICANN really does, and how it really
does
> > > > > > it.  Prof. Geist is not the only one that doesn't get it, but
since
> > he
> > > > has
> > > > > > the ability to publish columns, it is probably worth while
trying to
> > > > > > correct his misunderstanding.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Contrary to Prof. Geist's assertions, ICANN is not a
self-regulatory
> > > > > > body.  It was never intended to be a self-regulatory body.  It
was
> > > > intended
> > > > > > to be a forum for the possible discovery of consensus solutions
to
> > > > global
> > > > > > issues related to the DNS -- a way, quite frankly, for national
> > > > governments
> > > > > > to find a place for the resolution of global DNS issues that did
not
> > > > > > require a new treaty organization.  It is true that its original
> > > > structure
> > > > > > called for half its Board to be selected by a general At Large
> > > > membership
> > > > > > of some kind, but that was certainly not the consensus view of
the
> > > > Internet
> > > > > > community at that time.  Prof. Geist, having not been part of
the
> > > > > > discussions with the US Government that produced that
construction,
> > is
> > > > > > undoubtedly unaware of the fact that no one involved in that
> > decision,
> > > > and
> > > > > > I include those in the US Government (feel free to ask them) was
> > > > convinced
> > > > > > that such an approach was really workable.  The ICANN organizers
> > > wanted
> > > > to
> > > > > > insert the words "if feasible;" the US Government position at
the
> > > time,
> > > > for
> > > > > > reasons I leave to the reader to imagine, was "we'll figure out
how
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > > it later."  The then brand-new Board of ICANN, without the
> > assistence
> > > of
> > > > > > Jon Postel who had died a month earlier, acquiesced to this
> > position,
> > > > > > notwithstanding a quite clear concern that it might not be
possible
> > to
> > > > make
> > > > > > it work.  In hindsight, I am quite sure most regret this
decision.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We now have almost 4 years of experience by which to test the
> > concepts
> > > > on
> > > > > > which the original construction rested, and we actually know
some
> > > things
> > > > > > that we did not know then.  We know that the notion of global
> > on-line
> > > > > > elections is fraught with problems that are too complicated for
> > ICANN
> > > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > on the bleeding edge on innovation in this area.  We know that
there
> > > is
> > > > no
> > > > > > consensus in the ICANN community on exactly how the public
interest
> > > > should
> > > > > > be represented in ICANN's structure, notwithstanding the
insistence
> > of
> > > > > > those like Prof. Geist that there is only one possible solution.
We
> > > > know
> > > > > > that part of the reason there is no consensus is that those who
> > insist
> > > > on
> > > > > > direct elections of Board members have refused to consider any
other
> > > > > > alternative way of representing the public interest; this
religious
> > > > > > approach is not conducive to compromise or consensus.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We also know that a purely private organization, without the
support
> > > and
> > > > > > involvement of governments from around the world, will not be
able
> > to
> > > > carry
> > > > > > out thes mission assigned to ICANN (if you believe that mission
> > > requires
> > > > > > the agreed participation of all the relevant infrastructure
> > > > > > providers).  ICANN has no guns, and no soldiers; it has no
coercive
> > > > > > power.  It can succeed only if the relevant portions of the
> > community
> > > > > > voluntarily agree that they want to participate and make it
succeed.
> > > To
> > > > > > date, that has not happened.  We can argue all we want about why
it
> > > has
> > > > not
> > > > > > happened, but it is clear that the reason is not the failure to
hold
> > > > > > on-line elections.  The fact is that the root server operators,
the
> > > > address
> > > > > > registries, and the ccTLD registries must be persuaded to come
to
> > the
> > > > ICANN
> > > > > > table, and it will not help that process to make ICANN a less
> > stable,
> > > > less
> > > > > > predictable organization.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Finally, we know (or at least some of us strongly believe) that
the
> > > path
> > > > to
> > > > > > ICANN success is an appropriate public/private partnership, with
the
> > > > > > private sector and global governments working together within an
> > ICANN
> > > > > > structured to accept input from all but also able to make
effective
> > > > > > decisions in a timely way.  We are clearly on the path to such
an
> > > ICANN,
> > > > > > and I hope we will take another step toward that goal at the
meeting
> > > in
> > > > > > Bucharest later this month.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The notion that government interest in ICANN is heightened by
the
> > > > failure
> > > > > > to adopt some form of global elections is laughably naive.
> > > Governments
> > > > are
> > > > > > properly interested in ICANN because the Internet is
increasingly
> > > > critical
> > > > > > to the well-being, social and commercial, of their citizens, and
> > > because
> > > > > > what ICANN is responsible for is critical to the continued
stable
> > > > operation
> > > > > > of the Internet.  This would be true whether all or none of
ICANN's
> > > > > > directors were elected by the general public.  And it is this
fact
> > > that
> > > > is
> > > > > > driving the process of gaining the proper level of government
> > > > participation
> > > > > > in ICANN, nothing else.  This is the real world; Prof. Geist
insists
> > > on
> > > > > > occupying some academic construct of a world.  This longing for
some
> > > > > > utopian construct is not useful in trying to reform ICANN into a
> > body
> > > > that
> > > > > > does reflect, as best it can be done, the views and concerns of
the
> > > > entire
> > > > > > Internet provider and user community.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joe Sims
> > > > > > Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> > > > > > 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> > > > > > Washington, D.C. 20001
> > > > > > Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> > > > > > Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> > > > > > Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ==============================
> > > > > > The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments)
contains
> > > > > > information that may be confidential, be protected by the
> > > > attorney-client
> > > > > > or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public
> > information.
> > > It
> > > > is
> > > > > > intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If
you
> > > are
> > > > not
> > > > > > an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender
by
> > > > replying
> > > > > > to this message and then delete it from your system. Use,
> > > dissemination,
> > > > > > distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
> > recipients
> > > > is
> > > > > > not authorized and may be unlawful.
> > > > > > ==============================
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing
list
> > > > > > You may redistribute this message freely if you include this
notice.
> > > > > > To subscribe to Politech:
> > > http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> > > > > > This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> > > > > > Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > Like Politech? Make a donation here:
> > > http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
[email-masked]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> > For additional commands, 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1275
*************************