Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #130
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, August 30 2000          Volume 01 : Number 130

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

Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 00:41:48 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

At 09:39 30/08/00 +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>To the point of the review comittee deliberations that says:
>
>>-  Does the current constituency division minimize the effectiveness
>>     of the DNSO and NC?
>
>Just for the record, I think that the constituency structure of the DNSO is 
>a fundamental reason for the DNSO's problems.
>

Hear, hear!

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 07:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

Harald,

On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> The constituency structure is a failure and should be abandoned.

I agree, however could you suggest a better model, or how we could get
the constituency structure replaced and what it should be replaced by?

thanks,

- -rick

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:45:34 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

Well said.  Jamie

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> To the point of the review comittee deliberations that says:
> 
> >-  Does the current constituency division minimize the effectiveness
> >     of the DNSO and NC?
> 
> Just for the record, I think that the constituency structure of the DNSO is
> a fundamental reason for the DNSO's problems.
> 
> The constituency structure has led to:
> 
> - Polarization, as those who are in the DNSO to represent a constituency
> feel obliged to serve that constituency's interests whether that makes
> sense in a global context or not
> 
> - Underrepresentation, since many interested voices have trouble fitting
> into one or another of the constituencies
> 
> - Overrepresentation, since many interested voices (Business and IP are the
> most obvious) find themselves natural parts of several constituencies
> 
> - Misrepresentation, since the selection of a few people to act as
> spokesmen for a constituency obscures the sometimes significant differences
> of opinion within a constituency
> 
> I believe part of the problems the DNSO has had in reaching anything like a
> consensus position on *anything* is rooted in the constituency structure.
> (It is also rooted in the presence of a number of very loud voices that
> should, on the basis of democratic process, be heard, but where the owners
> of the voices have neither the inclination nor the temperament to reach for
> consensus. Reaching consensus in a loud environment will always be hard.)
> 
> The constituency structure is a failure and should be abandoned.
> 
>               Harald
> 
> --
> 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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 16:39:05 +0200
From: Jean-Michel Becar <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

As I fully agree with you, the constituencies are the heart of the problem
but how to change this?

If my memory is not too bad, the constituency model was hardly discussed
during the DNSO creation process - and this was the major issue. And today
how to reach consensus on the decrease of the number of constituencies? 

I don't think that IP people or others will accept to merge with another
constituency... and even if we succeed some group of people will create
sub-constituencies and we will return at the beginning.

Now to try to remove the constituency model will be also a hard task and it
will habe a deep impact on the Names Council. THis is a tricky probem.

An intermediate model could be to have only 3 constituencies:
- - Registries (ccTLDs, and gTLDs), 
- - Registrars 
- - Users (Trademark and intellectual property, Commercial and Business
entities, ISPs and connectivity providers ,Non-commercial domain name
holders )

and this model will give an aswer to the individual domain name holders as
they can be integrated with the users.

But frankly I don 't see how to manage to get rid of the actual situation.

Regards,
Jean-Michel Becar
Project Manager
www.etsi.org
tel: + 33 4 92 94 43 15
fax: +33 4 92 38 52 15
gm: +33 6 82 80 19 31

- -----Original Message-----
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 9:40 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

To the point of the review comittee deliberations that says:

>-  Does the current constituency division minimize the effectiveness
>     of the DNSO and NC?

Just for the record, I think that the constituency structure of the DNSO is 
a fundamental reason for the DNSO's problems.

The constituency structure has led to:

- - Polarization, as those who are in the DNSO to represent a constituency 
feel obliged to serve that constituency's interests whether that makes 
sense in a global context or not

- - Underrepresentation, since many interested voices have trouble fitting 
into one or another of the constituencies

- - Overrepresentation, since many interested voices (Business and IP are the 
most obvious) find themselves natural parts of several constituencies

- - Misrepresentation, since the selection of a few people to act as 
spokesmen for a constituency obscures the sometimes significant differences 
of opinion within a constituency

I believe part of the problems the DNSO has had in reaching anything like a 
consensus position on *anything* is rooted in the constituency structure.
(It is also rooted in the presence of a number of very loud voices that 
should, on the basis of democratic process, be heard, but where the owners 
of the voices have neither the inclination nor the temperament to reach for 
consensus. Reaching consensus in a loud environment will always be hard.)

The constituency structure is a failure and should be abandoned.

              Harald

- --
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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 11:34:43 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

At 04:39 PM 8/30/00 +0200, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:

>[snip]
>If my memory is not too bad, the constituency model was hardly discussed
>during the DNSO creation process - and this was the major issue. And today
>how to reach consensus on the decrease of the number of constituencies? 
>[snip]

	While all of the major dnso proposals back in early 1999 incorporated some
form of "constituency" system, they varied sharply in their understanding
of what the word "constituency" would mean.   The dnso.org proposal
contemplated six constituencies much like the ones we have now.   But the
competing Paris draft proposed a different approach:

> Members of the General Assembly shall self-organize into
> diverse constituencies. No member shall be a member of more
> than one constituency. The initial constituencies shall be
> recognized by the ICANN Board based on the following
> criteria:
> 1.Constituencies other than the constituency representing
> registries, shall represent at least 5% of the members of
> the General Assembly. 
> 2.Constituencies shall be open to membership without
> regard to geographic location. 
> 3.Constituencies shall adopt open and transparent
>  processes that comply with these Rules and the ICANN
>  Bylaws. 
>  4.Constituencies shall not be formed or recognized insofar
>  as they are based on geographic location, religious
>  affiliation, governmental affiliation, or membership in any
>   particular corporation or organization. 
>   b. Each recognized constituency shall select three (3) members
>   to sit on the Names Council . . . .

	The proposal incorporated a sharply different understanding of what a
"constituency" was, because the idea was that there would not have to be an
official list of interest groups that would get recognition and NC seats --
rather, any group of folks representing 5% of the ga could declare itself a
"constituency" and (assuming it satisfied the other criteria) get
recognized.  See (thank you, Ellen, for this inestimable historical
resource) <http://www.domainhandbook.com/comp-dnso.html>.  It seems to me
that the Paris draft approach also has flaws, and I think that the
constituency system as it exists today may be politically impregnable.  But
I think Harald's criticisms are *exactly* on the mark, and it may be worth
remembering past proposals in thinking what to do about them.

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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 12:30:22 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

Rick H Wesson wrote:

> > The constituency structure is a failure and should be abandoned.
> 
> I agree, however could you suggest a better model, or how we could get
> the constituency structure replaced and what it should be replaced by?

The only model I know of that demonstrably works for the Internet is
the IETF model. All working groups have mailing lists. Both those lists
and the meetings are open to all comers.

Moreover, everyone is expected to "leave their affiliations at the door"
for working group meetings. The goal is to solve problems for the net,
based on technical merit, NOT to represent your employer or interest
group. Of course, it isn't actually that simple but at least the notion
of leaving affiliations out of it is considered.

This is almost the exact opposite of the constituency 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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 18:34:27 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Per Koelle <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:

> As I fully agree with you, the constituencies are the heart of the problem
> but how to change this?
> 
> If my memory is not too bad, the constituency model was hardly discussed
> during the DNSO creation process - and this was the major issue. And today

Wrong........
This model was discussed in *details* among the original participants;
In barcelona, Monterrey, Washington and other places.
But then came all the "lawyers" several months later. And since then,
hardly any of the original groups have joined the discussions, and why?
Because the discussions where interupted by foolish individuals and
other loud speaking people( Lawyers ).

Regards
Per
.DK

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 09:36:37 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 04:39:05PM +0200, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
> If my memory is not too bad, the constituency model was hardly discussed
> during the DNSO creation process - and this was the major issue.

The constituency model was discussed at great and acrimonious length,
though almost every significant DNSO proposal had some form of
constituency model. 

While the focus these days is on the IP constituency, IP interests paid
very little attention to the DNSO when it was first forming.  The major
force pushing the constituency model was the ccTLDs, and a little bit
from the ISPs.  At the Monterrey meeting, for example, the ccTLDs
represented half the attendees, and there were only a couple of people
from IP interests.  If I remember correctly, in fact, the "registries"
proposal was that the registries would get *half* the votes on the Names
Council. 

> I don't think that IP people or others will accept to merge with another
> constituency... and even if we succeed some group of people will create
> sub-constituencies and we will return at the beginning.

The objections of the IP constituency would be microscopic compared to
the objections of the ccTLD constituency :-) 

> Now to try to remove the constituency model will be also a hard task and it
> will habe a deep impact on the Names Council. THis is a tricky probem.
> 
> An intermediate model could be to have only 3 constituencies:
> - Registries (ccTLDs, and gTLDs), 
> - Registrars 
> - Users (Trademark and intellectual property, Commercial and Business
> entities, ISPs and connectivity providers ,Non-commercial domain name
> holders )

That would pit two very sharply and clearly defined sets of interests 
against an impossibly diffuse interest.  The NCC already has the 
problem of being very diffuse.

> and this model will give an answer to the individual domain name holders as
> they can be integrated with the users.
> 
> But frankly I don 't see how to manage to get rid of the actual situation.

Yep.  There is no realistic way to eliminate constituencies, because
they reflect an underlying political reality.  In fact, the current
constituencies are a fairly faithful reflection of that underlying
reality: the current DNSO structure is the result of a long process with
*many* hard-fought battles; territories have been established, and any
serious attempt to disrupt those territories is not going to get very
far.  All that stuff about being doomed to repeat history...

However, there are clearly improvements that can be made.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll 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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:16:31 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

Hello Per,

Wednesday, August 30, 2000, 9:34:27 AM, you wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:

>> As I fully agree with you, the constituencies are the heart of the problem
>> but how to change this?
>> 
>> If my memory is not too bad, the constituency model was hardly discussed
>> during the DNSO creation process - and this was the major issue. And today

> Wrong........
> This model was discussed in *details* among the original participants;
> In barcelona, Monterrey, Washington and other places.
> But then came all the "lawyers" several months later. And since then,
> hardly any of the original groups have joined the discussions, and why?
> Because the discussions where interupted by foolish individuals and
> other loud speaking people( Lawyers ).

Ah yes, Per, as always, as long as your view is getting
representation, damn the rest of the views.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 19:53:19 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

Thanks to Roberto and Harald for starting a debate, and to all others for
their comments.

I agree only in part with Harald.
Let me explain. There are polarizations, yes, indeed.

But I see other polarizations, very important ones, accrossing
Constituencies, the priorities of work  -- they are not the same for those willing
to create new gTLDs and those willing the internationalisation of
domain names (therefore update of all impacted applications such as e-mail
for example). Yes, the second is much more difficult and demands
an international collaboration, but it is THE priority for non ASCII world,
the 158,000 AtLarge membership indicates 60% of members from the non ASCII world.

I would be more positive for the DNSO, but it needs a lot of improvements,
IMHO it may be achieved.

- - The DNSO is quite different from other SO's. 
  At the time of their setup both ASO and PSO are associations of existing,
  structured and financed organizations. The establishement of the DNSO was
  at the same time a twofold demand of simultaneous creation from scratch of its
  7 Constituencies, NC, GA, Secretariat as well as their corresponding
  financial structures, and of establishing working procedures.
  
- - The White Paper set up the initial program for ICANN, but in fact for the DNSO,
  and from the major US perspective: NSI monopoly managing international gTLDs,
  Intellectual Property concerns and definition of UDRP, opening new gTLD.
  The ccTLD issue is hardly listed (but IMHO an order of magnitude more difficult
  that the old NSI problem), the internationalisation of domain names
  (multilingual caracters) not existing. The DNSO and ICANN tackled to the urgent
  matters, the NSI functions has been splitted, UDRP defined.
  The issue of opening of new gTLDs leaved an unrest, but the awarness of
  its impact increased. IMHO each and everybody understood that new gTLDs
  will bring enormous financial ressources to registries and registrars,
  and that the gap between those who run fast and in English and those
  who need more time will enlarge. Unavoidable or not, I don't know.
  The world ruled by fast open competition compensated by charity speaking on
  behalf of abandoned is not the same as the world proactively taking
  into account larger interests and slowing down.

- - The excellent ICANN rule of geographic diversity obliged people to work
  accross the borders and have more open perspectives. The number of world maps
  put on offices' walls increased dramatically.
  The non English speakers became familiar with utmostly procedural approach
  used in the anglo-american system. The English speaking businessmen understood
  they may make money from international domain names.
  Superb opportunities are facing us.

- - The "Paris Draft" (January 1999) provides for a mathematical beauty
  -- 5% of GA may create a constituency, but this 5% shall be maintained 
  over time, i.e. sometimes a constituency shall disappear. Like all 
  mathematical beauties, it needs an implementation study, and even 18 months later
  I still do not know how to do it.
  (speaking in my quality of mathematician and host to "Paris Draft" group)

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 19:55:42 +0200
From: "Alf Hansen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

Harald et al,

You are pointing at a big problem, but I am not sure if the constituencies
themselves are the real problem.

I think we could change a lot if we focused on "DNSO", Domain Name Support
Organization", as one common group of people (like At-Large which also is a
large group of people with different interests).

This large group of people in DNSO have one thing in common: They are
interested in Domain Names and the development of the Domain Name structure
in the Internet. The "constituency tags" should be used just to indicate the
profile of each DNSO member. The constituencies should not fight each other,
but instead use its forces to pull in the same direction: A stable ICANN as
a privat bottom-up organization with equal and fair competition conditions
for everyone.

The gTLDs and the ccTLDs have much in common Example: A stable root server
structure operated under a common set of contract(s). The non-commercial
label can be put on people with both gTLD, ccTLD and IP profiles. The IP
people are working both for gTLDs and ccTLDs because we are all interested
in effective DRPs. I assume also the non-commercial people are interested in
effective DRPs. The "commercial and business" label can be put on any of us.
We are all dependant in ISPs.

Joke: And we have to live with the Registrars.... (I did not mean that...)

In the NC we have to make sure that all these interests and profiles are
duly represented, but in my opinion we should not have pure ccTLD- , gTLD,
Registrar- etc. -groups. We have all more that one lable, and we should work
together in the DNSO.

Perhaps we could structure the discussions in "topics" and the chairs should
make sure that vioces from all constituency-intersts were heard for each
topic. The conclusion on the "topic" could then be presented by the Name
Council as as a good advice to the ICANN Board, taking the views from all
the constituencies into account.

I can "hear" already people shaking their heads becase this is a naive
standpoint, but I have seen it before: Multiculture environments can really
work together, if they want to and if they have a common goal.

The problem with the current DNSO is that the people DO NOT HAVE A COMMON
GOAL. There are too many agendas.

Best regards,
Alf Hansen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Jean-Michel Becar
> Sent: 30. august 2000 16:39
> To: 'Harald Alvestrand'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)
>
>
> As I fully agree with you, the constituencies are the heart of the problem
> but how to change this?
>
> If my memory is not too bad, the constituency model was hardly discussed
> during the DNSO creation process - and this was the major issue. And today
> how to reach consensus on the decrease of the number of constituencies?
>
> I don't think that IP people or others will accept to merge with another
> constituency... and even if we succeed some group of people will create
> sub-constituencies and we will return at the beginning.
>
> Now to try to remove the constituency model will be also a hard
> task and it
> will habe a deep impact on the Names Council. THis is a tricky probem.
>
> An intermediate model could be to have only 3 constituencies:
> - Registries (ccTLDs, and gTLDs),
> - Registrars
> - Users (Trademark and intellectual property, Commercial and Business
> entities, ISPs and connectivity providers ,Non-commercial domain name
> holders )
>
> and this model will give an aswer to the individual domain name holders as
> they can be integrated with the users.
>
> But frankly I don 't see how to manage to get rid of the actual situation.
>
> Regards,
> Jean-Michel Becar
> Project Manager
> www.etsi.org
> tel: + 33 4 92 94 43 15
> fax: +33 4 92 38 52 15
> gm: +33 6 82 80 19 31
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 9:40 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)
>
>
> To the point of the review comittee deliberations that says:
>
> >-  Does the current constituency division minimize the effectiveness
> >     of the DNSO and NC?
>
> Just for the record, I think that the constituency structure of
> the DNSO is
> a fundamental reason for the DNSO's problems.
>
> The constituency structure has led to:
>
> - Polarization, as those who are in the DNSO to represent a constituency
> feel obliged to serve that constituency's interests whether that makes
> sense in a global context or not
>
> - Underrepresentation, since many interested voices have trouble fitting
> into one or another of the constituencies
>
> - Overrepresentation, since many interested voices (Business and
> IP are the
> most obvious) find themselves natural parts of several constituencies
>
> - Misrepresentation, since the selection of a few people to act as
> spokesmen for a constituency obscures the sometimes significant
> differences
> of opinion within a constituency
>
> I believe part of the problems the DNSO has had in reaching
> anything like a
> consensus position on *anything* is rooted in the constituency structure.
> (It is also rooted in the presence of a number of very loud voices that
> should, on the basis of democratic process, be heard, but where
> the owners
> of the voices have neither the inclination nor the temperament to
> reach for
> consensus. Reaching consensus in a loud environment will always be hard.)
>
> The constituency structure is a failure and should be abandoned.
>
>               Harald
>
> --
> 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
>

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 15:09:11 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Returning from a week offline, I am working my way through some mail.
Jefsey asks some good questions, and I'll respond as best I can.

Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> But I would ask from every of the five candidates to address the following
> questions I feel important:
> 
> - what is your definition of a domain name? On which grounds do you think
> IP is concerned? Do you consider that owning a domain name is the same as
> using it? Which solutions would you propose to get rid legally and fairly
> of cybersquatting?

    From a perspective of national law in most developed countries, I
think we are past the point where there is a serious effort to assert
that domain names have nothing to do with trademarks.    I am not aware
that developing countries have been very aggressive on this topic in
international fora, such as WIPO.  So it seems to me, the issue both (a)
what is good policy, and (b) who should be making and enforcing policy.

    From a traditional consumer/public interest perspective, trademark
rights should protect the public from misleading representations, but
they should also be limited in important ways, to avoid anticompetitive
uses of trademarks, or to accommodate a number of other important
values, such as free speech.   

   Much of the current problems stem from the artifical scarcity of
TLDs.  If ICANN would permit an expansion of the TLD space, for a
variety of names and TLD management policies, there would be far less
need to litigate disputes.  Give the airline industry .air or .airlines,
and let them manage it they way they want.  Let the labor unions have
.union, or a rival group have .workers, to manage as they want.  Let the
music industry get .music, the film industry .cinema or .film (or other
language versions), and then we would not have everyone fighting over
.com and .org.   

    I think the cybersquatting issue is real, particularly now with few
TLDs.  I can't get cpt.org, an unused domain.  Many of the really
twisted WIPO UDRP decisions are efforts by the panel members to take
domains away from speculators.   Unfortunately, in their efforts to
attack the speculators, WIPO panels are creating global trademark policy
that is far too restrictive, in term of the public's rights.  For
example, in several cases WIPO panels take away generic names and award
them to firms that have registered trademarks that use the generic
name.  WIPO panels have been very aggressive with respect to the issue
of what constitutes a confusingly similiar name.  The notion that
natwest.com will be confused with natwestsucks.com is absurd, of course,
but so are the decisions in domains such as catmachine.com and
caterpillar, crew and jcrew and others. 

	Decisions like kwasizabantu.org
(http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2000-August/000260.html)
are particularly troubling, where the WIPO panel flatly rejected free
speech or critiscim as a legitimate use for a domain.   In my opinion,
the ICANN board has to be more responsive to the problems with the
UDRP.  I would push for a clearer statement regarding the public's
rights in these disputes, particularly in the areas of the public's
rights to use names of firms, products or organizations in a domain that
was used for criticsm (walmartsucks.com), parody, organizing
(exxon.union), or for competitive purposes, such as comparisons of rival
products (cokevpepsi.comparison, aolflaws.com, etc).  

  See
http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2000-August/thread.html
for links to discussions of some of the recent WIPO decisions.

> - is the address semantic part for IP or part of free speech? I explain: is
> there a difference for you between http://support.france.ibm.com (Saxon
> semantic) and http://support.ibm-france.com (Latin semantic)

    I don't understand the point you are making here.  However, in my
opinion, domain names are speech, and the public has legitimate
interests in using domains names for speech.

> - a network may two architectures: central operations with slave stations
> (star network) or distributed stations and central services (meshed
> network). What is the Internet on your opinion? How do you relate this to
> Roots, ICANN, DNSO WGs?

   My uneducated opinion is that ICANN should avoid unnecesary
expansions of its authority, and not seek to exercise control over
network operations that do not deal directly with domain names and
numbers.  

   I think the question of roots is interesting, because it is not
obvious what would constitute an alterantive root system.  Some have
suggested that AOL's keyword system could be considered an alternative
root system, for example.  I would hope that ICANN would stay out of as
many areas as possible.

> - how important to you is IP numbering plan management? do you support the
> concept of a de facto worldwide control of the people through their IP
> addresses? what is your opinion on privacy in the IP context?

   The privacy issues regarding ip and domain name management are not
trival, and I regret not having addressed this in any detail in my
earlier statement on the DNSO web page.  In my opinion, the current
ICANN restrictions on the anonynous registration of domains is a mistake
- -- it is too broad.  I can see how this might make sense for web pages
that are engaged in commerical transactions.  But the current ICANN
restriction applies to any domain registration, used for any purpose.  I
wish I knew more about where things are going in terms of IP numbering
managment.  I was looking at this page today, trying to appreciate the
privacy consequences:
http://www.arin.net/announcements/policy_changes.html

> 
> - every nominated candidate is from NorthA. Have you previously committed
> clearly to the opening of the Internet structures and technologies to new
> cultures, character sets, national, regional, local interests?
> ICANN should be a real international body. This should be made clear
> through the recognition of several languages and the geographical location
> of its instances (not only through the tourism of its meetings). DNSO paved
> the way. Would you support equal right ICANN offices (even unstaffed) in
> every geographical area?Do you have suggestions to make such local presence
> useful?

   I don't think local presence is a good idea, because it is
expensive.  One might want to insist on staff who could speak more than
one language, if only to insure that you hired people who understand
there is more than one culture.  My wife is french, and she used to work
in the R&D office for Berlitz, testing teaching materials in different
cultures, and in distance education in Malyasia, so I have learned a
little from her.
Most of my own work is international, much in developing countries.  In
international groups I work in, I have found translations to be mixed
blessing.  They are expensive, and can slow things down quite a bit. 
With ICANN, how many languages would be enough?  India has something
like 40 official languages.  I think the EU is being buried by the costs
of servicing so many languages, but ICANN covers the whole world, so the
problem is much more difficult.  

   Where ICANN can do more is in terms of multilingual character sets,
domain names and TLDs, but here one would expect the IETF to be taking
the lead on the technical issues.  

   With respect to different legal traditions regarding trademarks,
freedom of speech and privacy, ICANN should not migrate toward the
policies with the least freedom and least privacy.  

> 
> - new industries and automation will have a tremendous use of Internet,
> opening new ways to use, develop, control and pay for it. Would you support
> innovative avenues in studying this aspect, like - this is only an example
> - in having test/experimental gTLD sponsored by the DNSO (out of the
> current ICANN work)? Other suggestions?

   ICANN should let others experiment with different gTLDs.  I think
restricted TLDs will be interesting, if ICANN premits easy entry to run
a TLD.  At some point ICANN should give some indication of the number of
TLDs that the DNS system can support.  

> 
> - ICANN charter is to work out consensus. The "stay @large" experience is
> not satisfactory in its present form (over representation of Japan and
> Germany, unequal number of ICANN nominated person, short period during
> vacations, 70% of the voting PINs not received). This is therefore an
> anti-consensus operation: which strategy would you propose? Which is your
> vision of the ICANN and what are the bylaws modifications you would support?

   Good questions.  I don't have many answers.  I would start by working
to get consensus on a statement about where ICANN's mission ends -- an
"I CAN'T" statement.  Just having ICANN claim that it doesn't do policy
work, when that is most of what it does, isn't working very well.  Once
you have a better handle on where ICANN's mission ends, you can make
better decision on how to run ICANN.   I think it is important to keep
the elections for the at large members, so there is at least a
possibility that the public can participate.  I am concerned that ICANN
will impose fees on at large voting rights.

> 
> - ICANN needs a budget and people dedicating time and resources to the
> common good should deserve to be correctly compensated (do you approve).
> ICANN seems to weave links, financial expanses, working culture, etc... to
> become a need for a court of large interests and real or self nominated
> experts, making itself necessary as a business would do. Do you agree? Do
> you support this strategy? Which alternative would you support? Would you
> support the concept of SO having an independent budget and resources?

   The funding issue is a tough one, because ICANN is looking for money
everywhere, including IP numbers, registry fees, and things like the
$50k fee for even applying for a new TLD.  Meanwhile, some ICANN staff
claim the public should not have a say in ICANN policies (for example
Mike Roberts comments in Cario).  I personally think ICANN could cut the
costs of the meetings quite a bit, and as much as I enjoy the trips to
Cario and other places, this may not be a good way to operate,
particularly if generous hosts don't appear.  A much more boring but
frugal approach much be a good idea.  

> - there are in the world many worldwide organizations representing
> interests using Internet, from IATA to Churches, Red Cross to Interpol, GAC
> to CCITT. Would you support the concept of an International Organization
> Internet Club for them to periodically meet, exchange informations and
> experience, share projects, describe needs, etc..? Would you support the
> idea of a ad hoc Working Group to study this and propose a Supporting
> Organization set-up?

   I don't think ICANN should be responsible for all of these various
Internet agendas.  It is not at all qualified to do many of these
things.

> - if elected at the BoD, do you consider that you will have to represent
> the then current opinion of the DNSO General Assembly even if changing, or
> that you owe the DNSO and the people who voted for you to stay cleverly
> consistent with your own views.

     I think you have to respond to new information.  You can look at
what I have said about ICANN over the past two years here:
http://www.cptech.org/ecom/icann

> I apologize to have been long, but IMHO some of these 10 issues will decide
> of the survival of the ICANN and we need to know where our director will stand.
> Sincerely yours.
> Jefsey Morfin
> 

   Thanks, it was fun to respond. Jamie

- -- 
James Love  <[email-masked]>  http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036
voice 1.202.387.8030 fax 1.202.234.5176
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 12:08:22 -0700
From: Liz Bartlett <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

At 07:55 PM 8/30/00 +0200, Alf Hansen wrote:
>I think we could change a lot if we focused on "DNSO", Domain Name Support
>Organization", as one common group of people (like At-Large which also is a
>large group of people with different interests).
>
>This large group of people in DNSO have one thing in common: They are
>interested in Domain Names and the development of the Domain Name structure
>in the Internet.....

This brings up a point which has worried me for a while - what it
the nature of the dividing line between members of DNSO, and At-Large
members? There seem to be a large number of individuals who are
members of both groups - and no rule in place to stop someone from
being nominated to stand for the ICANN board in both venues, in the
hope of doubling their chances of "getting in".

The ICANN web site doesn't help in defining this at all; if a person
reads the descriptions of the DNSO sections, and finds they fit one of
them, should they then resign as an At-Large member? (And let's not get
side-tracked into a discussion on the merits or otherwise of the ICANN
web site - this has already been covered in many places!)

Alf's second paragraph above would seem to apply equally to the At-Large
membership as it does to DNSO membership. And if it is the defining
characteristic of DNSO members, why does it also appear to be the 
most dominent qualification for people standing for At-Large nominations?

- --Liz

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Bartlett*http://www.khyri.com/            110 E. Wilshire Ave.#G-1
Idyll Mountain Internet*http://www.idyllmtn.com/   Fullerton, CA 92832
Virtual Dog Show Co-ordinator*http://www.dogshow.com/   (714) 526-5656
Tibetan Mastiff Web Site*http://www.tibetanmastiffs.com/
- --
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 #130
************************