Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1299
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, June 25 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1299

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

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 15:02:29 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

At 02:07 PM 6/24/2002 -0400, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

>[snip]
>Concering the comments regarding list moderation, its my impression that the
>ERC envisions an assembly with a very focused purpose.

         I read the ERC document differently, Ross.  The GA, in that 
document, is "a cross-constituency meeting place," "for the exchange of 
information and ideas."  That is, it is an organization with *no* focused 
purpose, apparently for unfocused chatting.  Any real work that utilizes GA 
members will take place not in the GA proper, but in "working groups, 
drafting committees, and task forces" directed by the Council.  (After all, 
*real* work would result in recommendations, and the ERC document is 
adamant that the GA shall make none.)

         None of this is new; it has always been the NC's understanding of 
the role of the GA.  (Indeed, one of the striking thing about the Blueprint 
is the extent to which it carries forward the current DNSO untouched, 
expect for spinning the tame ccTLDs off into their own SO.)  The only 
problem with NC's current understanding, from the NC's own perspective, is 
that the GA has tended to become restive -- to think that it as a body 
should have a role in the policy-making process.  The ERC proposal attempts 
to prevent that in mandating that the GA shall not see itself as a "forum 
for making decisions or recommendations," shall take no formal positions, 
and shall have no discussion that is not moderated by (or under the 
supervision of) a member of the Council.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[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: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 12:41:36 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Blueprint to purge the critics

I am quite displeased that some of our members get exiled for over
posting. And then some large Registrars representative on this list can
over post. Especially when his main comments have to do with limiting
access.  That just plain sucks.  We will remain viable.  The bad guys
running for Lynn's seat will not.  

Eric

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> How then do I get subject I care about discussed?  Without a constituency
> to belong to, or any Board members who answer to me, there is no avenue
> withint the ICANN strcuture where I can raise issues and see if others
> agree.  Which, as I read it, is exactly the point:  The GA has not gone
> along with the program, it's dared to express views that dissent from the
> ruling cabal's agenda.  It must go.  And go, it seems, it shall.
>
> ICANNWatch.org will remain open, of course, but comments posted there are
> officially irrelevant to any decision ICANN makes - it takes the view they
> don't exist.
>
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>
> > I think its important to ensure that the evaluation of the ERC
> > recommendations regarding the GA take into account the sum of  specific
> > recommendations rather than the specifics in isolation.
> >
> > Concering the comments regarding list moderation, its my impression that the
> > ERC envisions an assembly with a very focused purpose. Part of this lies
> > with ensuring that discussion is limited to the issue(s) at hand - ie - the
> > work of the GNSO.
> >
> > In other words, if proposals aren't tabled and focused discussion does not
> > ensue and recommendations aren't forthcoming then the GA *cannot* be
> > effective. In this context, moderation is a useful tool for ensuring that
> > the discourse is focused and relevant.
> >
> > Some say that moderation of the list is tantamount to censorship when in
> > fact it is, and should be, a reasonable tool that the chair can use to
> > ensure that the goals of the assembly are reached.
> >
> > I can't say that any of this will be easy - rules will need to be
> > established and likely refined, but at the end of the day, unless the output
> > is substantive, then the effort is wasted.
> >
> > One of the points that the ERC didn't touch on adequately, IMHO, is
> > steering. While generalities are put forward, I would be very interested to
> > hear much more in the areas of intake and closure for instance.
> >
> > -rwr
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>; "Ross Wm. Rader"
> > <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 10:29 AM
> > 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%20Parliam
> > ent.jpg
> > > :)
> > >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 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
- --
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 20:35:23 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ISOC Luxembourg: An Afternoon with Vint Cerf

- --=======2CEE2824=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-15837032; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 19:09 24/06/02, Jeff Williams said:
>Thomas and all,
>Yes, very interesting!  What is actually interesting is that Vint Cerf
>would be spending July 4th (Independence Day), probably the single
>most important holiday in the USA in Luxembourg.  To me that
>shows his total lack of patriotism as a US citizen.  I am ashamed
>for him and of him...

I am afraid you are wrong here, Jeff. Vint is to the countrary
(and we all are aware fo it) using all the prestige of the 4th of July
to impress on us the importance of his visit, as if it was a "State
Visit".

At the same time, Alejandro Pisanty will be in Paris at ISOC with
some decorum.

Is ICANN selling themsleves here, or making us to understand
that the world is still to revolve on the shoulders of ATLAS ...

>Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > Maybe some of you find this interesting.
> > Titre: An afternoon with Vint Cerf : "Internet: 21st Century Tidal Wave"
> > URL: http://www.isoc.lu/conferences/index.html
> >
> > On 4th July 2002, ISOC Luxembourg is proud to organize a conference
> > featuring Dr. Vinton Cerf, father of the Internet.
> >
> > The conference is scheduled on the 4th July, 2002 at 2:30 pm at the:
> >
> > International School of Luxembourg
> > 36 rue Dupong (Campus Geesseknäpchen)
> > L-1430 Luxembourg
> >
> > The conference wil be held in English. However, we will take
> > questions in French, German and Luxembourgish.
> >
> > The entrance is free for everyone. However, given the limited number
> > of seats, you are requested to book your seat in advance.
> >
> > Provisional program
> >
> > 14:30 Welcome address
> > 14:45 to be defined
> > 15:30 "Internet: 21st Century Tidal Wave" by Dr. Vinton G. Cerf
> > 16:15 Discussion panel with Dr. Cerf and industry representatives
> > 17:30 Farewell drink

- --=======2CEE2824=======--

- --
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 16:10:33 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Survey of Usage of the .BIZ TLD

Working with Professor Zittrain of the Harvard Law School, I have recently
examined a variety of data about registrations in Neulevel's .BIZ TLD.  Our
major findings are as follows:

* At least 74% of currently registered .BIZ domains provide no web content
or provide only error messages or placeholders.

* Approximately 25% of .BIZ registrations are registered to the same
organization that registered the corresponding .COM, and such domains are
about one-third less likely to provide substantive web content than domains
registered by someone without a corresponding .COM registration.

* A large number of .BIZ domains fail to comply with .BIZ registry
anti-warehousing policies, suggesting that such policies are not being
effectively enforced.

* Registrar market shares vary substantially between .BIZ and other TLDs;
while the largest .COM, .NET, and .ORG registrars have large shares of .BIZ,
certain other registrars also service many .BIZ names.

Our work to date is available at
   <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/tlds/001/>

Benjamin Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/edelman

- --
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 18:12:36 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Reform proposal:  A democratic DNSO

Ross and all assembly members,

  Ross, we [INEGroup] are in agreement with you as far as the DNSO
GA, as well as the rest of ICANN, including the constituencies, should
be about what is what, not who is who.  Unfortunately the ICANN
Staff and BoD don't seem to want to actually proceed in that
fashion, and frankly from the start in '98, never have. Most of us
that have been here from the beginning know that ICANN is already
Captured, but the old gTLD-MOU group known than as CORE.
This was definitely confirmed in MdR2000...  And sense that
time and even before, things in the DNSO have gone along
that groups agenda ever sense.

  We strongly disagree with you notion that a democratic process
is not  the process that ICANN should be following as in accordance
with the White Paper and the MoU, as well as being the best historically
known process method for some 200 or so years..  Worked pretty
well for the Continental Congress, should work pretty well for
ICANN and the DNSO as well.

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> Danny,
>
> I touched on this many moons ago. The principle value that the GA can and
> should be bringing to the table is the informed recommendations that its
> members can make. We also talked about this generally on Thursday. Claiming
> to represent a Public Interest doesn't increase the legitimacy of the
> assembly. This is one of the big areas that the current GA has gotten
> interminably tied up in. In the GA, as with the IETF, its not about who you
> represent, but the ideas that you bring to the table. The ideas that
> eventually result in consensus based recommendations that can be taken
> seriously. This is not about democracy - it never was.
>
> -rwr
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 10:31 AM
> Subject: 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

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, 24 Jun 2002 19:32:07 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "Moderating" the GA list.

Sunday, June 23, 2002, 9:04:17 PM, Kent Crispin <[email-masked]> wrote:
KC> 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.

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

Well, o.k., organization, component, group or assembly, whatever you
prefer to call it is fine by me. But this and your feeling about the
GA's performance, is really not relevant to the discussions about
censorship control by one or few, given to their own discretion,
without rules, etc.

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

Now, that really makes it credible to me. :-)

- ----
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: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:40:19 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Go Daddy Go  (was "DNS default helps hackers")

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:33:32 -0400, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> 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?

Hi Ross

No particular hidden agenda - I just thought that comments about a security
issue might be interesting to list participants.

Just as people might be interested in the Go Daddy suit against Verisign.

This is what Mark Hollands wrote in The Australian today (Tuesday, 25 June
2002) under the title "Dark days as industry comes under scrutiny":

"Staying on the same side of the Pacific, the brilliantly named company Go
Daddy, which sells domain names, has thrown 800lb gorilla Verisign in the
dock.

"Verisign is accused of writing to all Go Daddy customers saying "come to
momma coz your contract is about to run out with daddy".  It did not put it
quite like that, but you get the drift.

"Verisign doesn't deny the acccusation and it took a federal court order to
stop the firm sending out expiry notices to Go Daddy customers.

"Once the owner of the domain name monopoly in America, Verisign now struggles
to maintain market share.  According to Reuters, it faces a crop of court
claims "seeking class action status that accuse the company of inflating the
stock price and misleading investors about organic growth".

"Its idea or organic growth apparently includes letters telling Go Daddy
customers their domains will expire if they fail to send Verisign $US29
immediately.  Those who responded unknowingly switched accounts.  Verisign,
incidentally, charges almost three times more than Go Daddy -- and a bunch of
other rats and mice in this space -- for a similar service.

"Cheeky, or unethical?  The US District Court in Arizona will decide.

"When Reuters rang Verisign spokesman Brian O'Shaughnessy to ask him what on
earth was happening, he declined to comment.

"Enough said, Mr O'Shaughnessy . . . "

Mark Hollands in an Asia-Pacific vice-president for the research and
consulting group, Gartner.  He is a former editor of Australian IT.  His views
are not endorsed by Gartner.

See also:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=go+daddy+verisign

Best 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

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:14:45 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Survey of Usage of the .BIZ TLD

On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 04:10:33PM -0400,
 Ben Edelman <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 35 lines which said:

> * At least 74% of currently registered .BIZ domains provide no web content
> or provide only error messages or placeholders.

So what? Do you imply that the DNS was invented only for the Web? Do
you want to require that every domain has a "www" name? My domain
SOURCES.ORG has no Web server but I use it daily for e-mail. Am I a
bad net.citizen?
 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:08:54 +0300
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Cross-constituency meeting with ICANN Board

[Usual disclaimers: I'm not a professional scribe and may have
missed or misinterpreted statements. These are not verbatim
quotes. /// Alexander]

10-11h AM, Bucharest
Personal notes from the cross-constitueny meeting (BC/IPC/ISPCP)
with ICANN directors Hans Kraaijenbrink, Nii Quaynor, 
Alejandro Pisanty, Lyman Chapin, Andy Müller-Maguhn, 
Stuart Lynn, Amadeu Abril i Abril, Sang-Hyon Kyong,
Jonathan Cohen

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

PISA: Introduction. Think we have found useful way of dialog.
      As public as possible. Will never have perfect ICANN,
      continuous evolution. Feel that we converged within
      E+R Committee, also in community. We have reached a
      number of basic agreements. Out of this week, we really
      have to come out with a framework. We won't see a lot
      of changes around these basic principles. We have to
      see which are the sticking points; should work on
      changes preferably this week; send everybody home with
      specific tasks. Understanding and acceptance of 
      concept necessary, especially NomCom concept and
      Supporting Organizations. Parts have less (ASO), parts
      have more work to do (ccTLDs).
LYNN: Nowhere in my original paper did I state that ICANN has
      failed, in particular due to participation of community.
      My concerns were towards the future. Put out deliberately
      provocative proposal. Wanted to make sure it is taken
      seriously. Response of community absolutely magnificient.
      Appreciate E+RC work very much. As Bret Fausett said,
      the community has been heard and listened to. Hope that
      as we get through the week -- not everybody will be happy
      about everything -- we can get forward with implementation
      and solve some of the most significant problems identified.
      Work of Committee and community has given us structured
      way forward.
[Q by Steve Metalitz, IPC]
Q:    One area that is frustrating -- lack of progress in getting
      ccTLDs in the ICANN system. How to go about this unfinished
      business?
LYNN: Very difficult. More than 200 TLDs. Time to take a fresh
      look at those relationships. ccTLDs and governments should
      get together; problems may in part be rather there than with
      ICANN. Slow, steady progress. We'll have more agreements in
      place, but long, complicated task.
Q:    Anything in reform that will help facilitate this?
LYNN: CNSO major step.
MMAG: Heard from ccTLDs that separation gTLD and ccTLD is good,
      but also heard that differentiation, e.g. regarding
      funding, may still not be enough.
KRAA: ccTLDs not one view. Look at contribution of Oscar Robles.
PISA: With regard to Latin American ccTLDs, new views have emerged.
      Slowly, the view that ccTLDs only have local responsibilities
      is being diluted. Have not talked to all ccTLDs. But changing
      the parameters we can look at new CNSO. Team play important.
ABRI: ccTLDs do participate in ICANN as forum, not in ICANN as
      contractual structure. I as ccTLD manager would not sign ICANN
      contract without assurance about DoC MoU issues. Perhaps
      need clearer statement on redelegations, name server changes
      etc. Incentives count. Only telling "sign an agreement" is
      not effective. General idea that ccTLD agreements are missing.
[Q by Philip Sheppard, NC Chair]
Q:    Some of us are still to hear the intellectual case for a
      Nominating Committee. Improve composition of Board? Think
      that current Board is quite fine. Want to know why improvement
      of Board is so important and about nominations to SO Councils.
CHAP: Want not another place for battles. Role geared to finding
      suitable people. Hope that NomCom casts a broad net. Look
      for people in all parts of the world and all parts of society.
      Not another layer of structure that we already are familiar 
      with. Not to pursue individual agendas, not the traditional
      list of insiders.
MMAG: Speaking as someone not happy with NomCom. Originally, Board
      divided between infrastructure providers and users. A lot of
      criticism because people are ignored; not all can afford to
      come here. 
COHE: Without getting into political agenda that some people have --
      NomCom has to be looked at as a transitional period. Maybe
      a way for one years, two years, six years. Some Board members
      still think that elections are possible. Nothing cast in stone.
      Nobody mentioned transition period: A time where some decisions
      will have to be taken and have to be done; nobody knows what
      and when.
QUAY: Very interested in representation of future users.
LYNN: Important question. Andy's point: Question to what extent the
      public interest gets reflected in ICANN. As we think it through,
      not many disagree that what ICANN does impacts public interest
      as well as others. NomCom a way of casting a wide net. Important
      not to think "I'm here from the ASO etc.".
PISA: NomCom role with respect to SOs: We are not arriving from tabula
      rasa. We have DNSO reviews, questions still open about process,
      not only structure. Idea of having NomCom add people to SOs is 
      an extension of NomCom concept: Look for people providing a
      more global point of view beyond specific tensions. Not an
      interventionist approach; want more of a principled than an
      interested approach. Looking at facilitating movement in SOs.
      Currently, approach of blocking consensus by asking for more time.
[Q by Grant Forsyth, BC]
Q:    NomCom is not a nominating committee, it's an appointment
      committee. Nominating Committee produces a slate. In Board
      structure, more than half of Board members are going to be
      appointed. That suggests a deep satisfaction with the Board
      today and -- while current proposal seems to have settled
      current constituencies -- still a dissatisfaction with that
      process. Suggests that constituencies don't represent a
      majority of interested groups. People will come from a 
      background and are not different than people elected. Have
      to emphasize that people are delegates -- positive approach.
COHE: You don't improve just because you're dissatisfied. Lyman
      expressed that being confined to chosing Board members from
      what is today the "ICANN community" is the best approach.
      A lot of people may be excellent Board members would not
      now be able to reach the Board under the current structure.
      Broader net means a much better chance for certain parts of
      the community to reach the Board than under the current
MMAG: What shall be the outcome of process? In my view, balance.
      If IP interests included, this has to be balanced by freedom
      of speech and so on. 
CHAP: Origin of NomCom is IETF/IESG in effect appointing. Shown 
      to work well. Not every time a new constituency comes along,
      the Board process and the bylaws should be changed. Have a
      process that is flexible. 
KRAA: Create a Board that works as a team. If you're looking for
      IP vs. Freedom of Speech -- that's policy development. Through
      this way, we have a better way to control the diversity.
      Important to have a team from different parts of the world,
      of the community, that work towards the goal of the corporation.
ABRI: Agree with NomCom idea, but composition still falls to closely
      to organized groups. Eight is not more than half of the Board;
      have a twenty member Board, even if not all voting.

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

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:02:08 +0300
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: VeriSign audit report posted

Report of Annual Independent Neutrality Audit
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/ain-audit-19jun02.htm

>In our opinion, except for the material noncompliance and the restriction 
>on the scope of our examination described above, VeriSign, Inc. complied, 
>in all material respects, with the ICANN Requirements for the year ended 
>December 31, 2001.

VeriSign response
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/verisign-ain-response-24jun02.htm

>As to the two minor areas of concern noted by the Auditors, we cannot agree 
>with the Auditors' conclusion that these items constituted "material 
>noncompliance" with the stated requirements. 

Best regards,
/// Alexander

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

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 13:59:20 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Cross-constituency meeting with ICANN Board

On 2002-06-25 11:08:54 +0300, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>[Usual disclaimers: I'm not a professional scribe and may have  
>missed or misinterpreted statements. These are not verbatim  
>quotes. /// Alexander]

I'll archive this (and anything similar others may wish to send to  
the GA, or just to me!) at  
<http://does-not-exist.org/bucharest-protocols/maillist.html>.  Note 
that I'm just one hour away from Bucharest, as far as time zones are 
concerned, so I'll update this rather quickly once I have something.

An RSS feed pointing into that archive is also available at 
<http://does-not-exist.org/bucharest-protocols/bucharest.rss>.

Maybe those of us who are not on-site can get a reasonable overview 
of what's going on in Bucharest this way.

- -- 
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: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 05:55:29 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: VeriSign audit report posted

Verisign's response seems reasonable and I would agree with its
conclusions as to the two violations noted (the IP address
restrictions and the labeling of data tapes).

However, their response did not seem to address this point:
Our examination also disclosed that VeriSign, Inc. had not established
adequate controls that would allow us to obtain sufficient evidence to
determine compliance with requirements H.V.1, H.V.2, H.V.4 and I.2 for
the year ended December 31, 2001 because VeriSign, Inc. did not
maintain sufficient historical records of system configuration
information on a daily basis. Because of this restriction on the scope
of our examination, we do not express an opinion on compliance with
Requirements H.V.1, H.V.2, H.V.4 and I.2 for the year ended December
31, 2001.

Tuesday, June 25, 2002, 2:02:08 AM, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Report of Annual Independent Neutrality Audit
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/ain-audit-19jun02.htm

>>In our opinion, except for the material noncompliance and the restriction 
>>on the scope of our examination described above, VeriSign, Inc. complied, 
>>in all material respects, with the ICANN Requirements for the year ended 
>>December 31, 2001.

> VeriSign response
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/verisign-ain-response-24jun02.htm

>>As to the two minor areas of concern noted by the Auditors, we cannot agree 
>>with the Auditors' conclusion that these items constituted "material 
>>noncompliance" with the stated requirements. 

> Best regards,
> /// Alexander

> --
> 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

- -- 
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: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:52:17 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: VeriSign audit report posted

On 2002-06-25 05:55:29 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:

>However, their response did not seem to address this point: Our 
>examination also disclosed that VeriSign, Inc. had not established 
>adequate controls that would allow us to obtain sufficient 
>evidence to determine compliance with requirements H.V.1, H.V.2, 
>H.V.4 and I.2 for the year ended December 31, 2001 because 
>VeriSign, Inc. did not maintain sufficient historical records of 
>system configuration information on a daily basis. Because of this 
>restriction on the scope of our examination, we do not express an 
>opinion on compliance with Requirements H.V.1, H.V.2, H.V.4 and 
>I.2 for the year ended December 31, 2001.

The requirements from appendix H:

V. ACCESS TO THE REGISTRY FACILITY

VGRS provides access to all VGRS customers through the following 
mechanisms and separates VGRS systems and information from systems 
and information of any affiliated registrar through these processes:

1. All registrars (including any registrar affiliated with VGRS) 
connect to the Shared Registration System Gateway via the Internet 
by utilizing the same maximum number of IP addresses and SSL 
certificate authentication.

2. All registrars have the same level of access to VGRS-generated 
data to reconcile their registration activities from VGRS Web and 
ftp servers. All registrars may perform basic automated registrar 
account management functions using the same registrar tool made 
available to all registrars by VGRS.

[...]

4. No registrar affiliated with VGRS will be given any access to the 
registry not available to any other registrar except with regard to 
information specific to their registrar.

The requirement from appendix I: 

2. All registrars accredited by ICANN who are authorized to register 
domain names in the {.com,.org,.net} registry shall have equivalent 
access to Registry Services provided by VGRS.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1299
*************************