Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1297
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, June 24 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1297

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:24:31 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "Moderating" the GA list.

- --=======251073AB=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-601C734A; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Thomas,
The question is what are you about? it looks like you are about statistics 
and nicely draft reports. Like the Chief in the Titanic kitchen wipping the 
tables before leaving. If you want to get the GA operational make it vote. 
On anything. Progessively it will become fed-up with non serious issues and 
you will get something achieved. How do you want people to get interested 
in writting letters they cannot sign and post? jfc

On 14:51 23/06/02, Thomas Roessler said:

>Any "moderation" of the GA list will have to meet some basic requirements, 
>besides improving readability and reducing noise.
>
>In particular, every posting sent to a General Assembly mailing list MUST 
>be available to the public.  That's what we currently achieve by having 
>ga-full on the one hand and the monitored GA list on the other.  The 
>effect of this kind of transparency is this: While undue censorship 
>becomes provable, unproven assertions of such censorship become moot.
>
>Also, it MUST be possible for members of the GA to get quick access to 
>postings.  This may be considered solved by having a ga-full list on the 
>one hand, and a moderated main GA list on the other - but I believe that 
>we can do better.
>
>A possible improved approach would be to make a traditionally
>moderated version of the list available IN ADDITION to what we have, and 
>look if people would actually accept it.  One of the problems
>with this approach is that it adds considerably to the complexity of the 
>whole GA thing - possibly beyond the point where it's still
>reasonable.  Also, it would duplicate some of the list monitoring
>efforts we already have.
>
>The interesting question is, of course, what the list coming out of
>this would look like.  I've made an experiment and taken the GA
>traffic from weeks 22 and 23 of this year (the first two weeks of
>June).  I have then deleted the things I'd probably have rejected as far 
>as a moderated list is concerned (and, of course, all the things I'd have 
>just ignored for a summary).  The result is available in
>web archive form at
><http://does-not-exist.org/ga/filtered/0206/maillist.html>.
>
>
>When I did this, I noticed that there were some list members whose
>postings (and even threads they started) I collectively deleted.
>With some other list members, I frequently deleted postings because
>they were off-topic or idle chatting. Finally, there were many
>members of the list whose postings I collectively approved.
>
>Thus, a very similar result could have been obtained by making the
>list unmoderated by default, but turning on moderation for a couple
>of individuals.
>
>
>If you want to put it like this, this would mean that list
>monitoring would intervene much more quickly, and, for instance,
>"block" people for mere off-topic posting.  This "blocking" would,
>however, be soft (as opposed to what we currently do): It wouldn't
>imply that messages don't go to the list at all, it would only mean
>that the individuals in question would be subject to some kind
>"adult supervision" - after having proven that they can't do
>without.
>
>
>Actually, I'd like to give this approach a try immediately after
>Bucharest - it's not clear to me that it will actually work as
>intended, in particular given the fact that the approach will
>probably require frequent changes to list filter definitions, and
>will have to withstand the usual attempts to game the system by
>some.
>
>Comments?
>
>--
>Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.370 / Virus Database: 205 - Release Date: 05/06/02

- --=======251073AB=======--

- --
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, 23 Jun 2002 15:11:18 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "Moderating" the GA list.

On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 12:52:38PM -0500, Don Brown wrote:
> Wilber :-)
> 
> I think you actually supported what I said.
> 
> Rules made by the members of the list are fine. Most all lists have
> them.

It is simply not true that most lists have rules made by the members --
almost always, rules for mailing lists are made by the list owners, and,
ultimately, the owners of the hardware that runs the list.  This is
because the list owners have a legal responsibility for what happens on
the list, and, unlike the list members, they can be tracked down and
held accountable.

[...]

> Let me put it another way and I don't mean this to be disparaging to
> anyone - it's just an example of what I mean: If the Republican party
> controlled what was printed in all the newspapers, at their sole
> discretion, it is rather doubtful that a democrat would ever be
> elected.

Flawed analogy.

You postulate that the republicrats control all the newspapers.  This
doesn't happen in real life, and there is simply no reasonable scenario
by which all mailing lists can be controlled; people are free to start
their own mailing lists, and indeed there are already multiple lists
totally outside of ICANN that discuss the same things that the GA list
does, and there is significant overlap in membership. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin, Technical Systems Manager, ICANN            [email-masked]
"Be good, and you will be lonesome."  -- Mark Twain       [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: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 18:27:38 -0400
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Pursuing Progress on Transfers

Danny,

I don't know the answer to that but it is not an unreasonable idea -
perhaps more important, would registrars exhibit a consensus on the
question?

Vint

At 01:22 PM 6/22/2002 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>Dear Vint,
>
>Transfers of sponsorship are governed by the "Policy on Transfer of 
>Sponsorship of Registrations Between Registrars" that appears as an exhibit 
>to the Registry-Registrar Agreement for each top-level domain.  ICANN's 
>Reconsideration Committee responding to Request 02-2 has stated, "ICANN, 
>however, is not a party to those agreements and is not entitled to enforce 
>them."  The Committee has further stated, "Because the "registrar 
>requirements" regarding transfers are not included in any contract 
>enforceable by ICANN, it is not appropriate that ICANN attempt to enforce 
>them."
>
>A simple and pragmatic solution to the ongoing problem of transfers might be 
>found by incorporating the language of the "exhibit" within the Registrar 
>Accreditation Agreement to which ICANN is indeed a signatory, thereby 
>allowing for the prospect of enforcement.  In your view, would the Board be 
>amenable to such an approach?

- --
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, 23 Jun 2002 15:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Pursuing Progress on Transfers

Danny && Vint,

The Registrars do want a way out of the current transfers mess, its been
over 12 months since we initiated actions recommended by ICANN's staff on
how to tackle the issue. If we are going to change course mid stream it
would be nice to ensure we are not near the shore before we correct
course.

AFAIK, the consensus process we are undertaking has the same effect as
ICANN re-negotiating contracts with out the re-negotiating part. Also if
ICANN wants to start over on the RRA I'm going to have a say in them
because last time no registrars had a say, and we all feel the pain
because of it.

best,

- -rick

On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, vint cerf wrote:

> Danny,
>
> I don't know the answer to that but it is not an unreasonable idea -
> perhaps more important, would registrars exhibit a consensus on the
> question?
>
> Vint
>
> At 01:22 PM 6/22/2002 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Dear Vint,
> >
> >Transfers of sponsorship are governed by the "Policy on Transfer of
> >Sponsorship of Registrations Between Registrars" that appears as an exhibit
> >to the Registry-Registrar Agreement for each top-level domain.  ICANN's
> >Reconsideration Committee responding to Request 02-2 has stated, "ICANN,
> >however, is not a party to those agreements and is not entitled to enforce
> >them."  The Committee has further stated, "Because the "registrar
> >requirements" regarding transfers are not included in any contract
> >enforceable by ICANN, it is not appropriate that ICANN attempt to enforce
> >them."
> >
> >A simple and pragmatic solution to the ongoing problem of transfers might be
> >found by incorporating the language of the "exhibit" within the Registrar
> >Accreditation Agreement to which ICANN is indeed a signatory, thereby
> >allowing for the prospect of enforcement.  In your view, would the Board be
> >amenable to such an approach?
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 19:06:27 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "Moderating" the GA list.

Sunday, June 23, 2002, 5:11:18 PM, Kent Crispin <[email-masked]> wrote:
KC> On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 12:52:38PM -0500, Don Brown wrote:
>> Wilber :-)
>> 
>> I think you actually supported what I said.
>> 
>> Rules made by the members of the list are fine. Most all lists have
>> them.

KC> It is simply not true that most lists have rules made by the members --
KC> almost always, rules for mailing lists are made by the list owners, and,
KC> ultimately, the owners of the hardware that runs the list.  This is
KC> because the list owners have a legal responsibility for what happens on
KC> the list, and, unlike the list members, they can be tracked down and
KC> held accountable.

Let me re-phase it for clarity: Rules made by the members of THIS list
are fine. Most all lists have RULES.

This is a list of an organization, as opposed to a list for the
benefit of a vendor's software, etc.  I think it is significantly
different.

As for liability and being held accountable, I don't see how anyone
could be realistically damaged.  It takes proving both liability and
damages to prevail.

KC> [...]

>> Let me put it another way and I don't mean this to be disparaging to
>> anyone - it's just an example of what I mean: If the Republican party
>> controlled what was printed in all the newspapers, at their sole
>> discretion, it is rather doubtful that a democrat would ever be
>> elected.

KC> Flawed analogy.

KC> You postulate that the republicrats control all the newspapers.  This
KC> doesn't happen in real life, and there is simply no reasonable scenario
KC> by which all mailing lists can be controlled; people are free to start
KC> their own mailing lists, and indeed there are already multiple lists
KC> totally outside of ICANN that discuss the same things that the GA list
KC> does, and there is significant overlap in membership.

A little dramatic and overly broad, perhaps, but it was the best
example I could come up with at the time, and the point made is not
flawed. Moreover, control of the media has happened in "real life,"
and it certainly could happen on a much smaller scale, such as this
list, if an individual or select group can control, at their sole
discretion, what gets posted.

True, I recognize that there are other lists and everyone can choose
to use them instead. However, I wasn't talking about those other
lists. I was talking about THIS list or more descriptively the list
intended for use by THIS Organization.

Thanks,

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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, 23 Jun 2002 19:04:17 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "Moderating" the GA list.

On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 07:06:27PM -0500, Don Brown wrote:
> KC> It is simply not true that most lists have rules made by the members --
> KC> almost always, rules for mailing lists are made by the list owners, and,
> KC> ultimately, the owners of the hardware that runs the list.  This is
> KC> because the list owners have a legal responsibility for what happens on
> KC> the list, and, unlike the list members, they can be tracked down and
> KC> held accountable.
> 
> Let me re-phase it for clarity: Rules made by the members of THIS list
> are fine. Most all lists have RULES.
> 
> This is a list of an organization, as opposed to a list for the
> benefit of a vendor's software, etc.  I think it is significantly
> different.

The GA is not an organization, it is a component of a larger entity. 
Ultimately, the purpose of the GA list is to supply useful input into
the ICANN policy development process.  Despite the best efforts of some
of the participants, the list as a whole is not doing a very good job at
fulfilling that purpose. 

> As for liability and being held accountable, I don't see how anyone
> could be realistically damaged.  It takes proving both liability and
> damages to prevail.

Recall the old domain-policy list hosted by Network Solutions? After
many years of letting the list run wild, it was shut down in an instant
because their lawyers told them to. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin, Technical Systems Manager, ICANN            [email-masked]
"Be good, and you will be lonesome."  -- Mark Twain       [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: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 21:42:56 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "Moderating" the GA list. - Spcl Attn. Thomas Rossler and the NC

Danny and all assembly members,

  Indeed Danny is quite right here.  Now one has ask for the DNSO
GA list to be moderated except Harald when he was the chair.
No one desired any NC member to replace the chair of the GA.
The voting rights of the GA members was voted upon some time
ago now, and to date now GA member that I am aware or has
ask for their voting rights to be suspended or the rights of other
GA members to be suspended or eliminated either.

  So again in conclusion, Thomas, you need to review your position
as Danny has rightly suggested.

[email-masked] wrote:

> Thomas,
>
> No one in the GA has called for a moderated list.
> No one in the GA has asked that the Chair be replaced by a Council appointee.
> No one in the GA has demanded that we lose our voting rights.
>
> Why are you so quickly jumping on the Board's bandwagon and supporting this
> ill-considered top-down "solution"?
>
> The problems in the DNSO do not stem from the GA.  We have a rapidly growing
> membership whose total exceeds that of all other constituencies combined.
> Our members are more involved with the day-to-day issues in ICANN than any
> other group.  We are the equivalent of an open Town Hall meeting that is
> always noisy, has both informed and uninformed members of the public (and
> occasionally the lunatic fringe), but overall one fact remains clear -- the
> debate is always healthy and vigorous.  A Town Hall meeting requires no
> "moderation" of the type that you are proposing... it only requires that
> which we already have in place -- sanctions against those that abuse our very
> few rules.
>
> The "problem" has always been the pathetic performance of the Council, and
> the consistently poor policy guidance that they have offered to the Board.
> The recent "Blueprint" does nothing to solve this core problem.
>
> Instead of a purely democratic one-person/one-vote in the DNSO, we are being
> told that the dysfunctional constituency system will prevail, and that the
> public interest element will lose their voting rights while only the
> lobbyists for special interest groups may vote within ICANN's
> policy-recommending bodies.  Further, the public voice must be "moderated"
> and controlled by a top-down appointed Chair.  This is unacceptable.
>
> Why should the voice of these lobbyists carry any more weight than the voice
> of the public that is represented in the GA?  Our founding structure called
> for a balance between the public interest and the special interests
> represented in the Supporting Organizations.  Since the At-Large has been
> eliminated, we remain the last bastion to support the public voice in the
> ICANN process, and the GNSO should reflect this necessary balance with full
> and complete voting rights for all of its members (not just for those that
> belong to special interest groups).
>
> As Chair, I would expect you to fight for our rights... not just to cave in
> to "imposed solutions" that run contrary to the bottom-up process.  Please
> re-think your position.
> --
> 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: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 10:54:38 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

At 12:21 22/06/02, Kent Crispin wrote:

>On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 04:26:04PM -0700, Patrick wrote:
> > If ICANN were the "bottoms-up" organization that it purports to be, then
> > why does the ICANN BoD or NC believe it is for them to decide the GA's
> > mandate?
>
>Let's extend that logic just a bit further:  If ICANN were the
>bottom-up organization that it purports to be, then why does the ICANN
>BoD believe that the US Dept of Commerce can decide anything about
>ICANN's mandate?

Because the Board knows that *the whole idea* of bottom-up is another 
emperor without clothes.

- --joop

- --
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, 24 Jun 2002 13:36:06 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign now auctioning off dot-cc names on eBay

On 2002-06-20 13:57:36 -0700, George Kirikos wrote:

>I've not seen this mentioned before, but they're now auctioning 
>off .cc names. It had previously been noted that they were 
>auctioning off .bz names.

News on this is available from CNet (via Yahoo), at 
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cn/20020622/tc_cn/938379>.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

VeriSign cleans up Web address auctions
Fri Jun 21, 8:11 PM ET

Paul Festa

VeriSign said Friday that it will clean up its domain name auctions 
on eBay, some of which appear to have violated the Web address 
registry's stated corporate policies. 

[...]

When we created our arrangement with eBay, we set a policy not to  
endorse or promote the sale of objectionable, inappropriate or  
trademarked material," said VeriSign representative Brian  
O'Shaughnessy. "The names of the nature that CNET pointed out are  
against our policy, and that's why we're taking immediate steps to  
remove them. We take full responsibility and are taking measure to  
ensure that this does not happen again."

Unlike top-level domains such as .com, which are approved by the  
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, country-code  
domains are not regulated, O'Shaughnessy said. As a result,  
VeriSign is free to resell addresses with those endings. 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

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

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:01:50 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars and ICANN Budget Approval

Danny,

The board has delegated responsibility for figuring out the details of the
budget to the budget committee. At this point, it is my understanding that
they have not been tasked with determining what the budget will be pursuant
to any board action on the ERC recommendations. It is likely that this will
happen in the future, at which point the budget committee will have to go
through the exercise again - which likely means that the registrar
constituency will also have to go through the exercise again.

Deferring on this at this point would mean no budget until such time that
the ER process has completed.

- -rwr
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 4:16 PM
Subject: [ga] Registrars and ICANN Budget Approval

> Dear Mike,
>
> I understand from reading the registrars list that there is a push
underway
> to have the registrars approve the ICANN budget (which orginally entailed
a
> per-name fee increase under the formula from 8 to approximately 12 cents).
> In view of the fact that the recently published "Blueprint" calls for a
> per-name fee at 25 cents, is it at all possible that you and your fellows
> registrars might be acting in an unduly hasty manner by sending in such
> agreements in advance of the final budget decision?
> --
> 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: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:29:12 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS

> Although our pricing, like much of the debate taking place over WLS, is
not
> legally relevant to the ICANN Board's review of VeriSign's proposed WLS
> price, we apply the same pricing rules to all SnapBack customers on an
equal
> basis. We do and have always offered volume discounts, as any business
does.
> Because this is standard business practice, and is in fact followed by all
> registrars, it's unclear why it is relevant here, even under the still
> legally unsupported standards of relevance held by WLS critics. So yes, we
> do offer "fair first-come first-serve treatment of all customers."

Mason - help me understand this statement. I've been trying to piece
together an understanding of this position based on Snapnames' public
statements and I've yet to see how you are supporting this statement.

Based on the WLS proposal, we are talking about taking a loosely defined
system of allocating names and organizing them under a centrally supported
process that is administered by the registry. There are pro's and con's of
doing so, all of which have been well covered here so I won't reiterate.
But, central to this analysis is the question of whether or not the proposal
negatively or positively affects competition (not competitors). Based on my
read of ICANN's deal with the DOC and it's bylaws, the questions that the
WLS proposal raises are squarely within ICANN's scope. I think that the
disconnect might lie with the rather narrow view that you have taken of
ICANN's role (resulting from strictly looking at the proposal from the
standpoint of the Registry contract as implied by the "pricing rules"
statement that you make above). If this is the case, then I suppose it
becomes a matter of interpretation and perspective, if not, then I'd
definitely like to hear more. Either way, I'd appreciate hearing a bit more
in order to allw my understanding to develop.

Thanks in advance,

- -rwr

- --
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, 24 Jun 2002 09:33:32 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNS default helps hackers

Patrick - very few DNS operators (globally) allow zone transfers. This has
very much become a de facto best practice.

What is it that you are bringing to our attention specifically?

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
To: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 6:21 PM
Subject: [ga] DNS default helps hackers

> As many as half the companies in the UK, including top ISPs, do not
prevent
> hackers from copying DNS server databases that may hold valuable
information.
> Though the lapse will not allow a hacker to take control of a DNS server,
it
> could help them to breach security.  [more]
>
> http://www.vnunet.com/News/1132666
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:38:32 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars and ICANN Budget Approval

Ross,

Thanks for the clarification.  

I note that the RAA stipulates that "any such fees must be expressly approved 
by registrars accounting, in the aggregate, for payment of two-thirds of all 
registrar-level fees".  Just speaking on a hypothetical basis, if one 
dominant registrar decided to withhold such express approval, wouldn't such 
action effectively cripple the budgetary process?  This particular language, 
as written, strikes me as "bad policy".   Wouldn't it be more prudent to 
request approval by two-thirds of all accredited registrars instead?  A 
single party should not have the power to jeopardize the overall budget, 
should they?  

- --
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, 24 Jun 2002 09:39:23 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

>
> IMHO only kids in kindegarten accept adult supervision and debates under
> adult control, adults do not. I am afraid that while the ERC first
document
> could have been promizing, the blueprint is the ICANN slow suicide. Anyway
> the GNSO GA is of no real interest, CCSO local GA are.

The recent ERC recommendations not only affirm the value of the GA but also
provide guidance how the forum can actually be made useful going forward.
The GA can be an effective body that actually contributes to ICANN's
mission. It is not currently. I believe that the recommendations provide a
very reasonable framework under which actual productive work can be
accomplished.

Your message demonstrates perfectly the current dysfunction. You make
sweeping generalizations critical of the proposal yet fail to provide any
clear input into how the proposal can be improved or provide an alternative.
This is not how functional organizations produce useful insight. This is why
the GA has failed to achieve relevance. This is why the status quo of the GA
is not acceptable.

There might be better ways to proceed, but in the absence of a better idea,
this is the only way to proceed.

- -rwr

- --
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, 24 Jun 2002 09:45:37 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

> My point is that the GA should mind its own business, and not be derailed
by
> interests and discussions that are not in its mission, which is, IMHO, to
> provide a forum for debating issues related to the DNS. If the GA will do
> (possibly effectively) the things it is supposed to do, it will live free
> and survive, if it neglects its mission, it will die (free or unfree is of
> course irrelevant).

Roberto, if the GA is to survive it, and its members, must first be aware of
what the its mandate is.

The GA is not a forum for debating. It is a forum for open participation in
the work of the DNSO.

- -rwr

- --
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, 24 Jun 2002 10:03:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

I beg your pardon?  We "participate" but don't express opinions?

I'm sure you didn't mean to sound Stalinist, but what exactly *did* you
mean?

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> The GA is not a forum for debating. It is a forum for open participation in
> the work of the DNSO.
> 

- -- 
		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: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:29:26 +0300
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

Hello Ross!

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>The recent ERC recommendations not only affirm the value of the GA but also
>provide guidance how the forum can actually be made useful going forward.
>The GA can be an effective body that actually contributes to ICANN's
>mission. It is not currently. I believe that the recommendations provide a
>very reasonable framework under which actual productive work can be
>accomplished.

The four elements in the Blueprint document are:
- -- GA mission: cross-constituency meeting place of both voting and 
   provisional constituencies
- -- GA steering: a GNSO Council member; GNSO Council responsible for GA
- -- GA working method: exchange of information and ideas, discussion, 
   resource for the creation of WGs, TFs and drafting committees.
   No decisions, recommendations, formal positions, votes.
- -- GA communication: moderated electronic discussion lists and forums

I agree that the ERC document somehow affirms the value of the GA,
but the elements are convincing to a varying degree. I personally
find the proposed GA working method to be consistent with the
proposed GA mission, but the steering and the communication --
if moderation really means pre-screening posts -- are impractical:
Either a GA secretariat would have to be in place, doing nothing
but screening postings, or (as Thomas demonstrated) there would
have to be automatic filters mainly based on /persons/ which IMHO
is a truly bad idea. In addition, one should not underestimate the 
amount of work involved in the GA. The GNSO Council members do 
their Council work beside their regular job and even that is a
lot of work (I heard rumours of people actually taking vacation
to get their Names Council work done!). Doing the GA as a side
job of a side job looks like a recipe for desaster (but maybe
that's just my power-hungry GA Alt.Chair perspective ;)).

I wouldn't defend the GA's *current* state just because it's the GA.
I believe the GA has currently not only a role as cross-constituency 
forum (and I'm very happy about every posting by someone who hasn't 
posted for a while!), it's currently the de facto individuals 
constituency, too. Such a double role is not a perfect solution 
for the future. The problem is that the Blueprint does not contain 
GNSO Council seats for an Individual constituency -- of course, 
there is currently no Individual constituency (and I hope nobody 
understands this as an invitation to re-discuss IDNO history!). 

I believe that if the ICANN structure follows that Blueprint, 
at least the criteria for the NomCom for the additional 
GNSO Council seats should reflect this current inbalance and the 
fact that gTLD registries, registrars, commercial, non-commercial
domain holders and IP interests are already represented.
Remember: In Stuart Lynn's original proposal, there was
a GNPC seat for individual users and no seat for ISPs and
Intellectual Property interests. Now, ISPs and IPC are back in --
and the individuals are gone again. All the other groups mentioned
as examples for provisional constituencies in the Blueprint are
to *some* degree covered by existing groups: Small and large 
businesses in the Business Constituency, academics, consumer 
and civil society groups in the NCDNHC. As long as there is
no organization which can speak for the entirety for individual
domain holders, it would also be the NomCom's task to ensure a 
balance.

With that, best greetings from Bucharest,
/// Alexander

PS: Off-topic: Let's try to build an ICANN that doesn't look
like the monstrous Palace of Parliament across the street
from the Bucharest Marriott -- /that/ is Stalinism (and some
claim this is the second biggest building in the world):
http://www.club-t.com/seikan/romania/Tourism/Bucharest/Palace%20of%20Parliament.jpg
:)

- --
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, 24 Jun 2002 10:31:52 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Reform proposal:  A democratic DNSO

Ross, you wrote:  "The GA is not a forum for debating. It is a forum for open 
participation in the work of the DNSO."  

Sadly, I think you are missing the point... We are in the midst of a debate 
regarding the "evolved" future of the GA within the DNSO.  As such, we cannot 
point to past constructs and declare that they are determinative.  

Within the DNSO we have two collectivities, the members of special interest 
groups (constituencies) and non-affiliated members (GA participants that 
represent the voice of the Public Interest).  Currently, no voting rights are 
accorded to those that represent the Public Interest within the DNSO, only 
lobbyists for special interest groups may vote.  Why should I and my peers 
that are actively involved in the day-to-day ICANN issues have no voting 
rights within this policy-recommending organ?  There are certainly as many of 
us in this organization as there are of you... why should we be treated as 
second-class participants? 

Our founding documents were predicated on a recognized need for "balance".  
An "evolved" DNSO should confer voting rights to all that participate in this 
body and should strike a balance between special interest and public 
interest.  In my view, that would mean that the GA as a collectivity should 
have as many votes as the aggregate of the special interests.  

An even better approach would be One-person/One-vote, a democratic tradition 
that would serve us well.  Let me ask, what would be your objection to a 
reorganization based on democratic principles?  Is there any particular 
reason why the membership of the GA should not be given voting rights?  What 
claim do you have to a superior status?
- --
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, 24 Jun 2002 10:46:32 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

> I beg your pardon?  We "participate" but don't express opinions?
>
> I'm sure you didn't mean to sound Stalinist, but what exactly *did* you
> mean?

Roberto explicitly stated that it was his opinion that the mission of the GA
was to "to provide a forum for debating issues related to the DNS."

There is a different between acting like a debating club and substantively
participating in the work at hand. IN other words, debate without results is
simply debate. Debate with no purpose is what chums do on a Friday night
over beers.

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

>
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>
> > The GA is not a forum for debating. It is a forum for open participation
in
> > the work of the DNSO.
> >
>
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1297
*************************