Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1278
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, June 17 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1278

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

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 04:04:01 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The True Authority? (Mainly for dig-gers)

I was wondering what the true authority was for ICANN.ORG.

Opinions differ:

zeist:marc {224} dig icann.org. ns @a.gtld-servers.net

;; ANSWER SECTION:
icann.org.              2D IN NS        VENERA.ISI.EDU.
icann.org.              2D IN NS        NS.APNIC.NET.
icann.org.              2D IN NS        NS.ISI.EDU.
icann.org.              2D IN NS        NS.RIPE.NET.
icann.org.              2D IN NS        RIP.PSG.COM.
icann.org.              2D IN NS        SVC00.APNIC.NET.

So there are 6 nameservers, right? Wrong:

zeist:marc {225} dig icann.org. ns @VENERA.ISI.EDU

;; ANSWER SECTION:
icann.org.              1D IN NS        ns.isi.edu.
icann.org.              1D IN NS        rip.psg.com.
icann.org.              1D IN NS        ns.ripe.net.
icann.org.              1D IN NS        ns.apnic.net.
icann.org.              1D IN NS        svc00.apnic.net.
icann.org.              1D IN NS        ns.icann.org.
icann.org.              1D IN NS        venera.isi.edu.

The NET zone does not know about ns.icann.org. Pity. (Solution: Tell
Verisign about it.)

The SOA specifies another authority for ICANN.ORG, and not one of the 6
or 7 nameservers:

zeist:marc {238} dig icann.org soa @venera.isi.edu

;; ANSWER SECTION:
icann.org.              6H IN SOA       dns1.icann.org.
hostmaster.icann.org. (

A bit of a problem, if different servers have different opinions about the
true authority in the DNS. Who is coordinating this stuff?

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

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 21:58:01 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The True Authority? (Mainly for dig-gers)

Marc and all assembly members,

  About a year ago, Roeland Mayer brought some attention to this
situation on this forum.  And ask the same questions as well?  Hence
it seems that the ICANN staff is still asleep a the switch...  Not
surprising really.  But makes one wonder that if they cannot even
properly handle their own Domain Name, one wonders how they
could suppose to determine the rest of the stakeholders how to
manage theirs?

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> I was wondering what the true authority was for ICANN.ORG.
>
> Opinions differ:
>
> zeist:marc {224} dig icann.org. ns @a.gtld-servers.net
>
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> icann.org.              2D IN NS        VENERA.ISI.EDU.
> icann.org.              2D IN NS        NS.APNIC.NET.
> icann.org.              2D IN NS        NS.ISI.EDU.
> icann.org.              2D IN NS        NS.RIPE.NET.
> icann.org.              2D IN NS        RIP.PSG.COM.
> icann.org.              2D IN NS        SVC00.APNIC.NET.
>
> So there are 6 nameservers, right? Wrong:
>
> zeist:marc {225} dig icann.org. ns @VENERA.ISI.EDU
>
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> icann.org.              1D IN NS        ns.isi.edu.
> icann.org.              1D IN NS        rip.psg.com.
> icann.org.              1D IN NS        ns.ripe.net.
> icann.org.              1D IN NS        ns.apnic.net.
> icann.org.              1D IN NS        svc00.apnic.net.
> icann.org.              1D IN NS        ns.icann.org.
> icann.org.              1D IN NS        venera.isi.edu.
>
> The NET zone does not know about ns.icann.org. Pity. (Solution: Tell
> Verisign about it.)
>
> The SOA specifies another authority for ICANN.ORG, and not one of the 6
> or 7 nameservers:
>
> zeist:marc {238} dig icann.org soa @venera.isi.edu
>
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> icann.org.              6H IN SOA       dns1.icann.org.
> hostmaster.icann.org. (
>
> A bit of a problem, if different servers have different opinions about the
> true authority in the DNS. Who is coordinating this stuff?
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 09:43:19 +0100
From: "Jon Lawrence" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] South African .za ccTLD administrator takes drastic  action to prevent government takeover

William

Happy to agree to disagree but could you explain how you see that .au does
not belong to the Australian community?

rgds
jon

>-- Original Message --
>Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 14:59:41 -0700
>From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked], "Jon Lawrence" <[email-masked]>
>CC: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] South African .za ccTLD administrator takes drastic 
action
>to prevent government takeover
>
>
>Sunday, June 16, 2002, 8:13:27 AM, Jon Lawrence wrote:
>
>> I don't see anything there that makes this a bad move at all.  Australia
>> has a vigorous democratic process and is capable of managing its domain
>> space in any way it sees fit.
>
>"It's domain space"  ??
>
>See, that is part of the problem I have with it  :)
>
>But, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and we will just have to
>differ on this one.
>
>-- 
>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: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:12:42 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: New TLD Evaluation Planning TF draft report

Draft of Final Report of the New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force
http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/draft-final-report-15jun02.htm

Table of Contents
  1 Overview
  2 Background
  3 Approach
  4 Parallel Processing: Opportunities and Risks
  5 Structure
  6 Areas
  7 Questions to be Addressed
  8 Monitoring Program
  9 Evaluation Methodology
  10 Evaluation Timetable
  11 Funding and Priorities
  12 Recommendations
  Appendix 1: Comments on Questions
  Appendix 2: Comments Received on Interim Report

[...]

  The Task Force solicits comments before July 15, 2002 on this draft of 
its Final
  Report. The Task Force will consider these comments and finalize the Report
  prior to submitting it to the ICANN Board sometime in July. At that point 
the
  work of the Task Force will be complete. As indicated in Section 9, however,
  members of the Task Force stand willing to assist in whatever way the Board
  considers to be appropriate if and when the Board proceeds with the 
evaluation
  itself.

[...]

   The topics included in the proposed four areas can be summarized as follows:

   Technical

     * Effects on DNS stability and performance.
     * Operational performance of the registry operators.

   Business

     * Compliance of new registry operators with signed agreements and with
       original proposals.
     * Business processes followed by new registry operators in offering 
services.
     * Scope of markets (registrants) attracted by new TLDs.
     * Practices of new TLDs for regarding trademark concerns, 
cybersquatting, and
       dispute resolution.
     * Effects on consumers and end users of new domain names.
     * Provision of accurate and up-to-date Whois contact information.

   Legal

     * Scope and effectiveness of legal agreements.
     * Monitoring of agreements for compliance.

   Process

     * Selection of new TLDs.
     * Communication of information during the pre start-up and start-up 
stages
       (Stages I and II).
     * Monitoring of performance of new TLDs.

- --
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: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:59:44 +0100
From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] SnapNames is now whining to total strangers!

The only fair way about expired domain names is to erase them from
the database altogether, and not provide anybody with details about
their expiry. If somebody then wants to keep on mining the database,
and trying to find out if "interesting" domain names (ie. ones that
could be re-sold at a lucrative price - in other words, domain
hoarding and speculation) have expired and been deleted, it's up to 
them, but erasing the names will make it pretty hard for them to find out.

Any other way, whether it being some kind of waiting list service,
or passing them on to some kind of auction service, is yet another
attempt by the industry that has grafted itself onto making money out
of domain names, to try and suck more money out of Mr. Joe Average.

I personally find this to be disgusting. Domain name speculation is
on-par with cowboy practices. Those endulging in it should be ashamed
of themselves, because it does nothing for the Internet; the only
incentive here, is fast cash, or a par with ticket touts. Trouble is, 
ticket touts are illegal, and the Internet is not mature enough to shame
domain touting, because most actors out there today, are knee-deep
in it.

One last point: domain names are not owned by registries/registrars.
They are merely the maintainers of the database. Too many of them
seem to think otherwise.

- --
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D. |--> Global Information Highway Limited
E-mail:<[email-masked]> | Tel:+44 (0)7956 84 1113 | Fax:+44 (0)20 7937 7666
Web: http://www.gih.com/ & http://www.nsrc.org/codes/country-codes.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: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:29:18 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] SnapNames is now whining to total strangers!

On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, at 12:59 [=GMT+0100], Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

> The only fair way about expired domain names is to erase them from
> the database altogether, and not provide anybody with details about
> their expiry.

Well, except the registrant perhaps? In any case, the ICANN rules that
bind the registrars force them to put the expiration date in whois.

> If somebody then wants to keep on mining the database,
> and trying to find out if "interesting" domain names (ie. ones that
> could be re-sold at a lucrative price - in other words, domain
> hoarding and speculation) have expired and been deleted, it's up to
> them, but erasing the names will make it pretty hard for them to find out.

Really? Just a matter of checking via cron jobs and seeing patterns.

> Any other way, whether it being some kind of waiting list service,
> or passing them on to some kind of auction service, is yet another
> attempt by the industry that has grafted itself onto making money out
> of domain names, to try and suck more money out of Mr. Joe Average.

Here I agree with you. Not only Joe Average though, but everyone are
held hostage even further by the ICANN domain name cartel, if the WLS is
approved.

> I personally find this to be disgusting. Domain name speculation is
> on-par with cowboy practices. Those endulging in it should be ashamed
> of themselves, because it does nothing for the Internet; the only
> incentive here, is fast cash, or a par with ticket touts. Trouble is,
> ticket touts are illegal, and the Internet is not mature enough to shame
> domain touting, because most actors out there today, are knee-deep
> in it.

This is a silly analysis. If it is an analysis. Domain names are not any
different from other scarce goods. The solution is relieving the scarcity.
Impossible with tickets, not with domain names. Solve the problem at the
root.

> One last point: domain names are not owned by registries/registrars.
> They are merely the maintainers of the database. Too many of them
> seem to think otherwise.

Who does own them?

- --
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: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:11:55 +0100
From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] SnapNames is now whining to total strangers!

>From: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
>To: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 3:29 PM

> On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, at 12:59 [=GMT+0100], Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
wrote:
>
> > The only fair way about expired domain names is to erase them from
> > the database altogether, and not provide anybody with details about
> > their expiry.
>
> Well, except the registrant perhaps? In any case, the ICANN rules that
> bind the registrars force them to put the expiration date in whois.

Correct, but until the holder of that domain renews it, nobody knows
if it will indeed expire, or if it will be renewed. You would have to
keep a good tab on domain expiry times, to check again a day after
expiry if it still exists or has been erased.

>
> > If somebody then wants to keep on mining the database,
> > and trying to find out if "interesting" domain names (ie. ones that
> > could be re-sold at a lucrative price - in other words, domain
> > hoarding and speculation) have expired and been deleted, it's up to
> > them, but erasing the names will make it pretty hard for them to find
out.
>
> Really? Just a matter of checking via cron jobs and seeing patterns.

Registry operators do not allow for automatic mining of their
database in their AUP. As for themselves running cron jobs, well,
they know when each domain expires anyway, but they should not
be allowed to be involved in this with a view of mothballing the domain.

[...]

> > I personally find this to be disgusting. Domain name speculation is
> > on-par with cowboy practices. Those endulging in it should be ashamed
> > of themselves, because it does nothing for the Internet; the only
> > incentive here, is fast cash, or a par with ticket touts. Trouble is,
> > ticket touts are illegal, and the Internet is not mature enough to shame
> > domain touting, because most actors out there today, are knee-deep
> > in it.
>
> This is a silly analysis. If it is an analysis. Domain names are not any
> different from other scarce goods. The solution is relieving the scarcity.
> Impossible with tickets, not with domain names. Solve the problem at the
> root.

I know, I know, the everlasting argument that if a million top level domains
were allowed, there would be no scarce resource in domains themselves,
thus making the domains value-less. This is where I disagree. With any
number
of top level domains allowed, we would see a scarcity of top level domains
in a matter of months, any kind of stability as to the DNS would be lost
because top level domains would constantly appear and disappear with
companies going bust etc. IMHO, it would be complete anarchy. No
reliable WHOIS pages, no accountability.

>
> > One last point: domain names are not owned by registries/registrars.
> > They are merely the maintainers of the database. Too many of them
> > seem to think otherwise.
>
> Who does own them?
>
>

This is another can of worms. IMHO, the domain name holder owns the domain.
Many will disagree. Many will agree. The yearly fee paid to the registry is,
IMHO,
the fee paid for the priviledge of having the domain name held within the
root database. Now I may be completely wrong on that one, but this is how
it was meant to be at the beginning. The initial database was held at
nic.ddn.mil.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) was then put in charge of it, and
contracted the then InterNIC to run the database for a specified period.
Things started going wrong when SAIC took charge, the service was re-branded
Network Solutions, the contract expired, Network Solutions argued that the
database was their property, and NSF, having made a mess of the initial
contract, did not have the balls to affirm its authority. Yes, this was in
the
early 90s, and from this point onwards, things went from bad to worse. The
acquiring of InterNIC by Verisign made things even more complex.

The apple did not rot overnight. The mess we are seeing today is the direct
result of years and years of mistakes, by various administrations, and
various
individuals. Many then actors were academics and engineers that never
thought
they'd have to face the harsh reality of the commercial world. In this
world,
everybody (and I mean everybody) who has had a hand in making decisions
tried to get away with as much as they could get away with. The right
solution
was seldom achieved. It was those who could flex their arm stronger than the
others that had their way. Today, everybody is flexing their arm, and
someone's
got to break. Undeniably, it will be very messy.

Having said that, a number of individuals out there have made great
contributions
to the Internet, some with little or no recognition. They can now be classed
in
two groups: those who are in the public light, sustaining a daily quota of
attacks
and abuse, and those who were so disgusted by the arm-flexing and vicious
personal attacks that they retired, or are working behind the scenes on some
more meaningful projects. Yes, the debate has lost a lot of people over the
years...

But I am digressing and rambling, so I'll hand the mike over to someone
else.

Cheers,

- --
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D. |--> Global Information Highway Limited
E-mail:<[email-masked]> | Tel:+44 (0)7956 84 1113 | Fax:+44 (0)20 7937 7666
Web: http://www.gih.com/ & http://www.nsrc.org/codes/country-codes.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: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 18:36:46 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC Teleconference minutes June 6, 2002

[To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]

[ http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020606.NCteleconf-minutes.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

         DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 6 June 2002 - minutes

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

10 June 2002.

Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020502.NCteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:

Peter de Blanc         ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Oscar Robles/
Elisabeth Porteneuve
Elisabeth Porteneuve   ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay     ccTLD

Philip Sheppard        Business
Marilyn Cade           Business
Grant Forsyth          Business
Greg Ruth              ISPCP
Antonio Harris         ISPCP
Tony Holmes            ISPCP absent, apologies proxy to Tony Harris
Philipp Grabensee      Registrars absent,
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars
Roger Cochetti         gTLD
Richard Tindal         gTLD  absent,
Cary Karp              gTLD  absent, apologies, proxy to Roger Cochetti,
Richard Tindall
Ellen Shankman         IP
Laurence Djolakian     IP
J. Scott Evans         IP
Harold Feld            NCDNH absent,
Chun Eung Hwi          NCDNH absent,
Erick Iriate           NCDNH absent,

13 Names Council Members

Thomas Roessler        GA Chair
Alexander Svensson     GA Alternate Chair

Glen de Saint Géry     NC Secretary
Alix Guillard          MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat

MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020606.NCteleconf.mp3

Quorum present at 15:10 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during
summer time in the northern hemisphere).

Philip Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference.

Approval of the Agenda
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020606.NCteleconf-agenda.html

An additional item was added to the agenda:
Status report regarding Deletions, Solutions, and WLS.
Prepared by Marilyn Cade, Chair
Transfer Task Force

The agenda was approved.

Item 1. Summary of last meeting:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020529.NCteleconf-minutes.html

J. Scott Evans moved the adoption of the summaries, seconded by Ken Stubbs
The motion was carried. There were two abstentions: Elisabeth Porteneuve and
Peter de Blanc for whom Elisabeth Porteneuve was holding a proxy vote.

Decision 1: Motion adopted.

Item 1: Transfer Task Force status report.

Council was asked by the Board in a resolution to transfer to the Transfer
Task Force a request for assessment on deletions, solutions and wait listing
service. The Status report gives the background and the summary of documents
gathered so far. Comments were submitted by the Intellectual Property
Constituency, the Business Constituency, the General Assembly, individuals
and two open conference calls and a public forum published by ICANN. On June
10 a version will be set up for public comment and Council members should
send the report to their constituencies for comment. The Names Council
should vote on it in Bucharest. The actual recommendations will be put
forward to the Board at the Bucharest meeting on Thursday 27 June, 2002.

Item 2 - Discussion on Nominating Committee proposals from ICANN evolution
committee and others.

Philip Sheppard set out the process to be followed: He proposed the Chair
draft  a formal response to the last paper from the ICANN evolution and
reform committee. The Names Council's work to date allows a response to many
issues in the document . It was agreed the Chair will write a draft for
e-mail comment and subsequent approval during the next teleconference on
June 17.

In comparing the NC recommendations to the Committee's paper, Philip
Sheppard said that the fundamental difference was a top-down approach
recommended by the evolution committee and the continuation of a bottom-up
approach  in the Names Council recommendations.  The main categories in
which the top down approach is happening are threefold:

     1. The composition of the Board
     1.1 Today the policy development bodies (like the old DNSO) elect 9
     board seats. In the proposal they elect none. Instead a nominating
     committee (nomcomm) choose 3 board representatives to represent the
     policy development bodies.
     1.2 In addition the nominating committee appoints some or all other
     Board members.
     1.3 There maybe some board seats available for advisory bodies such as
     the Security Advisory Body (SAC). But the SAC rep on the Board will be
     a Board appointee.

     2. Composition of the nominating committee (a circular endorsement
     process)
     2.1 There is a suggestion that the Board "ratify" the people proposed
     to form the nominating committee who in turn appoint the Board.

     3. Control of the policy development organisations
     3.1. The Board appoints the chair of each of the policy development
     organisations who is then also a Board member.
     3.2 The steering committee of the policy development organisations
     (such as the old Names Council) will also have "an appropriate number"
     of nomcomm appointed members.

Discussion followed on the concept, scope and composition of a nominating
committee.

J. Scott Evans addressed the issue of the steering committee chair
appointment who would also be on the Board of Directors and felt that it was
an overload for one person on a volunteer basis to act effectively even with
staff assistance.

Roger Cochetti compared a top-down versus a bottom-up process. The benefits
of a top-down process are
efficiency and speed but the drawbacks are lack of accountability and
legitimacy. A bottom-up process can be messy and time consuming, but it
forces accountability and legitimacy. He preferred the latter approach.

Bruce Tonkin said that the Registrars community support a nominating
committee but in fact it should be called a selection committee. The
Constituency wanted the generic supporting organisation to be able to select
voting members of the Board. The Registrars want an elected nominating
committee. They believe it would be acceptable for the nominating committee
to select some members of the new Names Council.

Grant Forsyth echoed what Roger Cochetti said, and was in favour of a
nominating committee for some board seats only.

Ken Stubbs felt that the persons delegated to represent the Generic Name
Supporting Organisation (GNSO) should be elected by that body.

J. Scott Evans's concern was with control, circular appointments and
funding. He understood that the reason behind the proposal was to divorce
policy development from  Board seats. He thought that a nominating committee
should not be electing the steering committee chairs or members but that the
SOs should elect their own board members.

Philip Sheppard questioned the reasoning behind an objective to divorce
policy development from Board seats. This maybe a theory that the Names
Council had an incentive to resist new NC constituencies because this would
dilute the 1 in 7 influence the Constituencies have in electing three board
seats. He said this seemed absurd. Conversely, if this was the incentive,
constituencies should be actively seeking allies to join as new
constituencies and so expand their slim chance of a  board seat.

Marilyn Cade noted that there was no evidence of a learning process
reflected in the committee documents. Most of the people who built ICANN are
not involved in the reform process. She stressed the importance of an
evolutionary approach that was focused. The right approach was more staff,
better procedures and tight timelines. She added that the At-Large effort
meets the public interest concerns of governments.

Elisabeth Porteneuve agreed with Marilyn Cade and added that ICANN had never
given any help to the DNSO. ICANN was set up for gTLD issues. Although the
ccTLDs never had a strong voice, they contributed expertise at national
level. They are in favour of evolution, and at the moment are working on
ICANN's mission and looking at the common denominators in the various
regions. They are seeking to identify those functions that cannot be
replaced by another structure (such as the IANA functions).

Thomas Roessler agreed with the previous viewpoints but added that precision
was lacking in the reform proposals. The areas that were particularly vague
or problematic were:
- - ICANN mission statement
- - Steering group members, what kind, their role?
- - Volunteers with special backgrounds were heavily relied on but not funded.
- - Advisory committees with a chair with a vote on the board is not a good
idea.
- - Advisory bodies with ex officio board seats would be a disincentive to
create future advisory bodies and so deprive the board of expertise.

Ken Stubbs echoed a concern expressed by Joe Sims that from the consumer's
perspective there was a blurring with regard to websites which were
geographic ccTLDs and those that acted as generic TLDs. He called for a
methodology in bringing about uniformity. Elisabeth Porteneuve responded
adding that concern was expressed about registrars' resellers who were
anonymous.

Philip Sheppard proposed the following recommendations:

1. There should be consistent criteria for participation in ICANN policy
development bodies. Among such criteria there should be the obligation to
abide by ICANN policies.

This proposal was not acceptable to the ccTLDs except on a technical level.
It was decided to defer debate for the time being.

2. Board members for Policy development bodies
The four policy development bodies, ccTLD, gTLD, addressing and protocol
should elect an equal number of board members.

Recommendation accepted by all.

3. A nominating committee should select a quota of board seats which will be
less than or equal to that number elected from the policy development
bodies.

Voting was as follows:7 In favour, 4 Against, 2 Abstentions.

The recommendation was carried.

The ISPCPC wishes their derogation to be recorded, the ccTLDs are not in
favour of a nominating committee.

The council then discussed the possible composition of a nominating
committee. Bruce Tonkin addressed the Registrars proposal. There should be
15 Members of the nominating committee made up as follows:
5 from the At-Large group
5 from the User groups
5 from the suppliers

Thomas Roessler raised the concern that it would be a duplication of the
board and an extension of the Names Council structure. He stated that there
should be different mechanisms for board election, and no mechanism
determining more than half of the board seats. Asked by Philip Sheppard what
the constructive role of the nominating committee would be, he replied that
the DNSO/GNSO would not have strong user, consumer and public interest and
it would be the task of the nominating committee to balance this.

In answer to the question: "Would the GA be happy with a number of seats
that could at a future point be taken away and eventually be given to the
At-Large?" Thomas replied that the GA would want elections now and later
clarified his view by e-mail.

Laurence commented that the IP consistency was in favour of the nominating
committee but that there should be a charter detailing criteria for
membership and its selections.

Ken Stubbs reminded Council that ICANN will only work in the future if there
is supporting personnel. All problems up to now are related to resources.
Council agreed and the chair agreed to emphasise this point in future
communications.

Philip Sheppard agreed to enquire of the ICANN Budget Committee why the $170
000 proposed by ICANN staff had not gone forward in the budget recommended
for Board adoption in Bucharest.

Thomas Roessler commented on the committee's proposed arbitration process,
saying that although he supported this, a mechanism was needed to ensure
low-funded groups could use arbitration. Council agreed. Bruce Tonkin
proposed  that the office of the ombudsman should have a budget for this.
Council agreed to revisit Recommendation 15 in light of the preferred
proposals for arbitration and an expanded role for the ombudsman.

Philip Sheppard concluded by saying that he would draft a reply to the ICANN
committee  that should be commented on by e-mail and be adopted during the
next teleconference to which he would invite the evaluation committee.

The teleconference ended at 16:50

Next NC teleconference June 17 at 15:00 Paris time, 13:00 UTC.

     See all past agendas and minutes at
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/2002calendardnso.html
     and calendar of the NC meetings at
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-calendar.html

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

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

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 18:47:03 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf MP3 recording June 17, 2002

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

The MP3 recording of the Names Council teleconference is now available at:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020617.NCteleconf.mp3

Happy listening!

DNSO Secretariat

- --
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: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:26:15 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] a little reminder/al

Sometimes it would seem we get a little complacent.  Sometimes it would
seem we bicker to much.
Sometimes we get caught up in personalities rather than issues.
Sometimes WLS or the NC or renewal of contracts are most important.
TFs are wrong.  There is a hand picked group right now running something
along the lines of a ALOC.
We don't know how they were picked or who they even are at this point.
Working groups that focus are a good idea, they must be open and
transparent in accordance with all papers and contracts.

Here is an old link that may help us remember the struggle that we have
met.
Ultreya

http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01558.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: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:30:21 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] SnapNames is now whining to total strangers!

On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 04:29:18PM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, at 12:59 [=GMT+0100], Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> > I personally find this to be disgusting. Domain name speculation is
> > on-par with cowboy practices. Those endulging in it should be ashamed
> > of themselves, because it does nothing for the Internet; the only
> > incentive here, is fast cash, or a par with ticket touts. Trouble is,
> > ticket touts are illegal, and the Internet is not mature enough to shame
> > domain touting, because most actors out there today, are knee-deep
> > in it.
> 
> This is a silly analysis. If it is an analysis. Domain names are not any
> different from other scarce goods. The solution is relieving the scarcity.

On the contrary.  Domain names are, in fact, different from many other
goods.

> Impossible with tickets, not with domain names. Solve the problem at the
> root.

The problem is *not* the shortage of names at the root.  The problem is
a shortage of names in .com...  All evidence indicates that for a
substantial majority of the registrant population, .com names are much
more desirable than other names.  If people lost that mindset, then
there are 250 TLDs available, and they can soak up a lot of demand.  
But as long as that mindset persists, then there is a shortage, and 
adding new names to the root simply won't make any difference.

The only interesting question is whether adding new names might help to
reduce the mindset; evidence from the new gTLDs indicate that it is 
very tough going.  

> > One last point: domain names are not owned by registries/registrars.
> > They are merely the maintainers of the database. Too many of them
> > seem to think otherwise.
> 
> Who does own them?

Domain names are not owned by anybody.  

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                          lonesome."  -- Mark Twain

- --
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: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:08:34 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] SnapNames is now whining to total strangers!

Give us some data to back up these statements.  I believe there are more ccTLD
names in "use" than there are dotCOMs.  Now if you are talking warehousing and/or
hoarding you may be right.
But this appears to be a dead horse and whipping it will not make it run.
We do not need more generics we need more commercially viable/country beneficial
ccTLDs, and that is happening.  You in ICANN have missed the curve, Joe, Jim and
Leah have already beaten you to the generic competition so move on and manage.

I assume you are speaking in some sort of official Icann position - security???

Eric

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 04:29:18PM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, at 12:59 [=GMT+0100], Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> > > I personally find this to be disgusting. Domain name speculation is
> > > on-par with cowboy practices. Those endulging in it should be ashamed
> > > of themselves, because it does nothing for the Internet; the only
> > > incentive here, is fast cash, or a par with ticket touts. Trouble is,
> > > ticket touts are illegal, and the Internet is not mature enough to shame
> > > domain touting, because most actors out there today, are knee-deep
> > > in it.
> >
> > This is a silly analysis. If it is an analysis. Domain names are not any
> > different from other scarce goods. The solution is relieving the scarcity.
>
> On the contrary.  Domain names are, in fact, different from many other
> goods.
>
> > Impossible with tickets, not with domain names. Solve the problem at the
> > root.
>
> The problem is *not* the shortage of names at the root.  The problem is
> a shortage of names in .com...  All evidence indicates that for a
> substantial majority of the registrant population, .com names are much
> more desirable than other names.  If people lost that mindset, then
> there are 250 TLDs available, and they can soak up a lot of demand.
> But as long as that mindset persists, then there is a shortage, and
> adding new names to the root simply won't make any difference.
>
> The only interesting question is whether adding new names might help to
> reduce the mindset; evidence from the new gTLDs indicate that it is
> very tough going.
>
> > > One last point: domain names are not owned by registries/registrars.
> > > They are merely the maintainers of the database. Too many of them
> > > seem to think otherwise.
> >
> > Who does own them?
>
> Domain names are not owned by anybody.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> [email-masked]                          lonesome."  -- Mark Twain
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1278
*************************