Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1300
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, June 26 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1300

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 13:12:30 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Taxation without Representation etc.,

All,

Here's the latest from news.com:

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-939061.html

These are the kinds of articles the public interest needs in the 
mainstream media... my only question:  Why the hell haven't the 
mainstream media people spoken up about ICANN's questionable activities 
in the past?

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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 12:19:41 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: VeriSign audit report posted

Alex and all assembly members,

Alexander Svensson wrote:

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

  I think it is important for the assembly members to know and understand
that the above mentioned "Independent Neutrality Audit" with
has the following opening comment and statement:
"Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation
standards established by the American  Institute of Certified Public
Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,
evidence about VeriSign, Inc.’s compliance with those requirements
and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary
in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide
a legal determination on VeriSign, Inc.’s compliance with specified
requirements."

  As some here are aware and I am quite sure that the DOC/NTIA
is aware that the "American  Institute of Certified Public
Accountants" as well as the SEC are currently reviewing
and making some significant audit accounting standard changes
in the wake of several public company accounting scandals
such as Enron.  The GA members should also note that
in the above quoted text that Earnst and Young did state
that it is not taking legal responsibility for the information
provided by Verisign, i.e. "Our examination does not provide
a legal determination on VeriSign, Inc.’s compliance with specified
requirements"

  Hence my fellow members, this audit isn't worth very much..

>
>
> >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
>
>

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: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:35:19 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] Bucharest on ICANN reform and NomCom

Jamie and all stakeholders or other interested parties,

  Well this is not surprising either...  Or at least given ICANN's
History to date it should not be surprising.  The "Blueprint"
has several flaws from a design stand point, as many have already
stated and observed publicly.

  In any event the "Borg-Like" attitude from the ICANN staff
and BoD are seeming the same old story and were obviously
not effected what so ever by the Senate hearings on June 12th is seems.

James Love wrote:

> Esther Dyson wrote:
> > the way you made it was not constructive.
>
>     What was going on in the at large meeting was that Esther and Denis were
> giving us the "go with the  Borg" pep talk.  It isn't constructive to
> disagree with they fundamental positions in the "blueprint" documents.
> "Constructive" contributions would be to working with the framework on the
> blueprint, and not object to the basic design.
>
>     We also received a lecture from Esther about how democracy isn't
> considered a good thing in many parts of the world.
>
>     I was asking if elections by the general public were in fact a taboo in
> the new ICANN blueprint.... seeing the GA "no vote" provision, and the way
> ICANN was created a "at large structures" that could apparently  never vote
> on anything, I was asking, is ICANN deliberately creating  a system where
> any expressions of popular are forbidden?
>
>      Raising this issue, or even asking the question, is "not constructive."
>
>       Jamie
>
> ------
> James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
> voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]

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: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:16:02 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Taxation without Representation etc.,

Tuesday, June 25, 2002, 10:12:30 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> All,

> Here's the latest from news.com:

> http://news.com.com/2100-1023-939061.html

> These are the kinds of articles the public interest needs in the 
> mainstream media... my only question:  Why the hell haven't the 
> mainstream media people spoken up about ICANN's questionable activities 
> in the past?

I really hate ignorant reporting, especially from those reporting on
the tech industry.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
EU officials also said they would prefer that the U.S. Department of
Commerce, the government body that spawned ICANN in 1998, relinquish
control of the root-server system, a master control database of
Internet sites that ensures that Web traffic gets to its intended
destination..

The fear is that in the wrong hands the enormous database could be
mined to determine all comings and goings on the Internet. Although
there is no evidence that this has happened, the issue has attracted
added attention in recent months as law-enforcement officials seek to
shore up defenses against feared acts of cyberterrorism.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The root zone doesn't need to be mined, it is public.  There is no
sane reason to not have it public, and that last paragraph is just
plain ignorance.

- -- 
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 12:00:31 -0700
From: "Asaad Y. Alnajjar   (Millennium Inc.)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Taxation without Representation etc.,

Oh well, one more article along the same subject.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020625/wr_nm/media_internet_icann_dc_1

Asaad

At Tuesday, 25 June 2002, William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Tuesday, June 25, 2002, 10:12:30 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
>> All,
>
>> Here's the latest from news.com:
>
>> http://news.com.com/2100-1023-939061.html
>
>> These are the kinds of articles the public interest needs in the 
>> mainstream media... my only question:  Why the hell haven't the 
>> mainstream media people spoken up about ICANN's questionable activities 

>> in the past?
>
>I really hate ignorant reporting, especially from those reporting on
>the tech industry.
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>EU officials also said they would prefer that the U.S. Department of
>Commerce, the government body that spawned ICANN in 1998, relinquish
>control of the root-server system, a master control database of
>Internet sites that ensures that Web traffic gets to its intended
>destination..
>
>The fear is that in the wrong hands the enormous database could be
>mined to determine all comings and goings on the Internet. Although
>there is no evidence that this has happened, the issue has attracted
>added attention in recent months as law-enforcement officials seek to
>shore up defenses against feared acts of cyberterrorism.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>The root zone doesn't need to be mined, it is public.  There is no
>sane reason to not have it public, and that last paragraph is just
>plain ignorance.
>
>-- 
>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
>

- --
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 12:13:14 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Taxation without Representation etc.,

Tuesday, June 25, 2002, 12:00:31 PM, Asaad Y. Alnajjar   (Millennium Inc.) wrote:

> Oh well, one more article along the same subject.

> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020625/wr_nm/media_internet_icann_dc_1

Same article (reuters wire).  And just as ignorant at yahoo as it was a News.com  :)

> Asaad

> At Tuesday, 25 June 2002, William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>Tuesday, June 25, 2002, 10:12:30 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>
>>> Here's the latest from news.com:
>>
>>> http://news.com.com/2100-1023-939061.html
>>
>>> These are the kinds of articles the public interest needs in the 
>>> mainstream media... my only question:  Why the hell haven't the 
>>> mainstream media people spoken up about ICANN's questionable activities 

>>> in the past?
>>
>>I really hate ignorant reporting, especially from those reporting on
>>the tech industry.
>>
>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>EU officials also said they would prefer that the U.S. Department of
>>Commerce, the government body that spawned ICANN in 1998, relinquish
>>control of the root-server system, a master control database of
>>Internet sites that ensures that Web traffic gets to its intended
>>destination..
>>
>>The fear is that in the wrong hands the enormous database could be
>>mined to determine all comings and goings on the Internet. Although
>>there is no evidence that this has happened, the issue has attracted
>>added attention in recent months as law-enforcement officials seek to
>>shore up defenses against feared acts of cyberterrorism.
>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>
>>The root zone doesn't need to be mined, it is public.  There is no
>>sane reason to not have it public, and that last paragraph is just
>>plain ignorance.
>>
>>-- 
>>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
>>

> --
> 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

- -- 
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 15:24:35 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars and ICANN Budget Approval

Monday, June 24, 2002, 10:57:58 AM, [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote:
Dcc> The following was just posted to the registrars list:  
Dcc> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02625.html

Dcc>     Dear fellow ICANN accredited registrars:
Dcc>     On behalf of the VeriSign Registrar (formerly known as the Network
Dcc> Solutions Registrar), NameSecure, SRSPlus, and NameEngine, the registrars of
Dcc> VeriSign believe that it is unwise at this time to react to the proposal to
Dcc> increase ICANN spending in 2002/2003 by 25% or more.  Such spending
Dcc> increases may - or may not - be necessary and justified, but we do not see
Dcc> how anyone could reach that conclusion at this point in time.  Consequently,
Dcc> we think that basic and sound planning requires that ICANN's proposed budget
Dcc> (fiscal year July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003), remain at the same levels as
Dcc> the current budget (fiscal year July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002), until such
Dcc> time as ICANN completes its current structural review. 
[SNIP]
Dcc>     Respectfully,
Dcc>     Bruce Beckwith
Dcc>     on behalf of the VeriSign Registrars

However, if ICANN approves the WLS deal for us . . . .
(just thinking out loud about the possibility of part II . . .)

- ----
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 16:52:54 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: VeriSign audit report posted

Note that controls were in place continuously during the audit period (2001)
to ensure equivalent access but the auditors were not easily able to go back
to points in time in 2001 to verify that.  There are ways that this could
have been demonstrated but it would have been extremely expensive.  We are
waiting to see what recommendations the auditors make for dealing with this
in the future that would provide an easier way to verify historical
activity.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 8:55 AM
To: Alexander Svensson
Cc: [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
- --
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 18:07:49 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Scribing?

Alex,  will you again be setting up irc.dal.net, #icann ?

- --
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 20:49:22 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] INEGroup Report on ICANN meeting in Bucharest - Special attn. DOC/NTIA

All assembly members and/or other interested parties,

Comments from James Love seem to mimic in a number of areas
what our attending members are also hearing and recording
as well..  See copy of Jamies earlier post with comments
from our attending members interspersed:

============  Copy of Jamies comments  starts here =========
Subject: Notes from June 25
          Date:  Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:44:18 -0400
   From: James Love <[email-masked]>
     To:  NCDNHC-discuss list <[email-masked]>,
        General assembly list <[email-masked]>

Bucharest, Romania
Tuesday, June 25, 2002
James Love ([email-masked], local cell
+40.72.164.3737)

I'm here at the ICANN meeting, having arrived in the
late afternoon.  I briefly sat in the on a meeting
about the .org bids, and in another meeting organized
by the "icannatlarge.com" organizing effort, which
featured quite surprising presentations by Esther
Dyson, followed by about 5 hours of gossip, drinks and
food in the Marriott Grand Hotel, where the meeting is
being held.  We have wi-fi, which makes email easy.

Everything will lead up to the ICANN board meeting on
Friday, and so far it looks like a depressing week.
Most people say the June 20 "Blueprint for reform"
document will be approved with a few changes on Friday.
Among other things, ICANN is seeking to eliminate any
possibility that there will ever be votes from the
general public for anything, and doing its best to pass
this off this as some consensus decision.  ICANN
also proposes to abandon an independent review
board, and is seeking to adopt a statement on
policy making that opens the door to just about
anything.

INEGroup Attending members Comments:

   Yes our attending member are hearing much of the same
stuff here as you are are.  This however did not overly surprise
our members there Romania, as this soret of mantra has been
expected for some time now...

  It also seems that there is much discontent with this
attitude coming from the ICANN staff and board
from those others that are also attending.  Seems that
the ICANN board and staff are nearly alone in this
mantra and cannot show adequate broad support
for it...

The main thing here is about raising fears about what
will happen if people don't go along with the ICANN
"reform" proposal, no matter how bad it is.  Many of
these are seemingly inconsistent, and appeal as much to
emotions as reason.  Top on the list is the resentment
toward the US for its current perceived control over
the Internet DNS.  Recent statements by members of
Congress are being used to work people up over the US
government taking over the ICANN functions.  A large
number of persons here find this a compelling reason to
sign off on almost anything here, so that ICANN can
(drum roll) sign a new MoU with the US DoC.

  INEGroup Attendees comments to the Above:

  Seems that EU members are less concerned
about the recent senate hearings as a few
days ago, but that still vestiges of "US Centric
DNS" are still around for what our members
are hearing and recording.  Many other attendees
have expressed a great concern for the "BluePrint"
as not being representative or reflective of the comments
that were sent in to ICANN regarding reform.

Apparently having a really bad ICANN and DoC is
held out as much better than DoC running the DNS
without ICANN, as if this is something to worry about
(plausible as a sustainable alternative), or the likely
outcome of a failed ICANN.

INEGroup attending members along these lines (from above):

  Our attending members see the choice as one that a number
of them have talked ot others attending as a non-choice
or that ICANN has already failed as it did not meet it's
contractual agreements regarding the creation of a
permanent At-Large for representation on the ICANN BoD.
Some are considering a new Root Structure approach
and New DNS as a possible route around...

Second on the list of feared things is the ITU, one
possible replacement for the US DoC if there was
international management of the DNS. The ITU is now
receiving some member government support for taking a
greater look a the DNS, particularly among developing
countries.  One of the issues here would be the
relegation issue for ccTLDs, an obvious role that ITU
could play.  A number of persons here express fear that
this would lead to undesired national government
involvement in the way some ccTLDs are run, on the
theory that the current ambiguity of who controls the
ccTLDs has prevented some countries from being too
ambitious in regulating domestic Internet activity (or
taking away lucrative franchises).  Clearly some ccTLD
operators are nervous about ICANN, and some ccTLDs are
nervous about national governments.  For those who are
worried about domestic governments, they had hoped
ICANN would provide a buffer.

  INEGroup Attending members on this:

  Our members have heard directly and indirectly pretty much
the same thing as Jamie is reporting (See directly above)
as it relates to ccTLD's.  Nothing new here as our attending
members are reporting that has not already been discussed
on the E-Mail Forums, most especially the DNSO GA
forum.  Concerns remain however that the ICANN
Staff and BoD seek to limit participation and possibly
completely eliminate online E-Mail forums, most
especially the DNSO GA as seemingly outlined
in the "Blueprint" document posted on June 20th.

I asked people, if you don't want the US DoC to have
the DNS MoU, and you don't want the ITU, what do you
want?  The GAC?  The answer among many was, nothing -
they want ICANN without any government involvement.
What seems missing from this wish is any evidence that
governments will just turn everything over to ICANN and
give ICANN a blank check to do whatever it wants,
without any public accountability.  Plus, ICANN is
asking governments to take a larger role, and they are.

INEGRoup attending members notes here (See just above):

  Yes it seems that our attending members are hearing much the
same as Jamie here with the caveat that some wish that there
remain a strong ability for governments to remain in oversight,
or that an At-Large that elects at least 51% of the board
be put into place as that oversight...

Meanwhile, ICANN itself looks more and more like a
cartel, or a quasi-government that seeks taxes and
unwanted supervision of a cartel.  Verisigin doesn't
want an expansion of the name space, unless they can
run everything, and neither do the ccTLDs.  ICANN is
doing approximately zero to introduce new TLDs.  This
problem is so obvious that ICANN is being warned that
if can face antitrust law suits, an issue Joe Sims is
advising the ICANN board on, I was told.

INEGroup attending members say to the above:

  Yeah, our members seem to have the opinion that
the ICANN BOD and staff are openly displaying
that the ARE a cartel, in the name of independence
from government or any accountability but to themselves
at this meeting...

The at large organizing meeting was small and even I
was surprised at how weak the support is here for
elections of any kind.  Esther Dyson and Denise Michel
gave long presentations on how the board would not
tolerate anything that involved the general public
electing board members, and they described the new
official ICANN "reform" version of the at large, which
is a highly structured consultation system, that ICANN
controls from the top, and which is not capable of
holding votes from individuals.  Esther went on about
how unpopular elections and were in Asia and parts of
Latin America, and how little support there was for
elections among the non US members of the ICANN board.

INEGroup attending members comments to the above:

  Yes the same old song seems to be sung by Denise and
Esther as was done on the ALSC some time ago as our
members seem to hear there.  Our members were
a bit shocked at how two faced Denise and Esther
could be from their statements of late on the At-Large
E-Mail forums vs this meeting...

At one point I said "look, in the White Paper,
individuals were going to have 8 of 19 board seats.  In
Cairo this was reduced to 5 elected members.  Then
there was talk after Accra of having an at large as a
supporting organization, with 3 board members.   Now in
the blueprint document, they will have 1 of 19 members
of a nominating committee.  Can you tell me how that 1
member will be chosen?"  At this point, Dyson told me I
should stop criticizing people, and be constructive.
The answer, of course, is that the ICANN board cannot
tolerate even the election of one person to a 19 member
nominating committee.  Apparently the mere existence of
a system for having elections is a taboo, because it
might lead to demands that elections be used for more
important things, and could provide evidence that the
public doesn't agree with the decisions of the hand
picked board members.  Of course, it is ironic that we
having this meeting in Romania, and headed next to the
People's Republic of China, to finish the job of
eliminating democracy input or mechanisms to express
dissent or popular opposition to ICANN Board policies.

Three members of the atlarge.com temporary steering
committee  (Vittorio Bertola, Izumi Aizu, and Wolfgang
Kleinwaechter) and were at the at large meeting, and
to my suprise, each of them
signaled a willingness to accept the ICANN
proposal to abandon any voting from individuals, in
favor of a promise by ICANN to consulate with the
public on issues.  The Dyson, Michel suggestion is to
be very docile, or the ICANN board won't even allow the
consultation process.   It is of course also relevant
that the ICANN board wants to strip the ICANN General
Assembly from the right to elect its own chair or vote
on any motions.

I got into a debate with Denise about the value of
pushing for a harder line on a role for the public in
ICANN, mentioning the possibility that the US government
could protect the rights of individuals in the ICANN
process.  Densie told us that she had 20 years of
policy experience, and she knew exactly what was going
to happen.  She said:
The US Senate would do nothing.  The US
House of Representatives would do nothing.  The DoC
would accept a slightly modified MoU in the
fall, and the ICANN board would adopt the
blueprint, without elections, in Shanghai.

Tonite Andy Mueller told me the ICANN board had one of
its secret get togethers this evening, and agreed to
approve the blueprint on Friday, with a few changes.
The board is closing ranks, and trying only to cut
whatever deals it needs to get the registries to go
along.   The $.25 per domain tax is not in the bag,
according to some, while others say it will go through.
There is an army of registry/registrars attending, but
very few domain holders are here to complain about the
tax, or to ask why they should have to pay, if they
have no voice in the organization.  The tax was just
proposed on June 20.   People have very low
expectations that the US DoC will do anything to back
consumer or civil society concerns about ICANN, and
seem willing to give up on lots of things.

  INEGroup attending members observations on the
Above:

  Seems that yet there are still many that wish that
DOC/NTIA would adhere to it's original agreements
and step in and do their oversight responsibility
in seeing to it that the ICANN BOD and staff
complete their original mandate they contracted
to do under the White Paper and the MoU.
Instead it seems that some significant changes
to that mandate, especially the MoU are what
the current ICANN BOD and staff have in mind.

Jamie
- --
- ------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040

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: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:54:10 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Taxation without Representation etc.,

Too little, too late.  The media should have picked up on the ICANN 
problem two years ago at least so that the public would have had a bit 
of information.  Now ICANN will pass whatever the board likes and to 
heck with the public, US Congress and anyone outside the cartel.  In 
the end, it may doom ICANN, but not before the damage is done to 
dessimate the intent of the internet.  Nothing will change until the public 
simply ignores ICANN and makes individual choices for themselves.  

And people on this list wonder why alternatives are on the rise.

Leah

On 25 Jun 2002, at 12:00, Asaad Y. Alnajjar   (Millennium Inc.) wrote:

> Oh well, one more article along the same subject.
> 
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020625/wr_nm/media_internet_icann_dc_1
> 
> 
> Asaad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At Tuesday, 25 June 2002, William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> >Tuesday, June 25, 2002, 10:12:30 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >
> >> All,
> >
> >> Here's the latest from news.com:
> >
> >> http://news.com.com/2100-1023-939061.html
> >
> >> These are the kinds of articles the public interest needs in the 
> >> mainstream media... my only question:  Why the hell haven't the 
> >> mainstream media people spoken up about ICANN's questionable activities 
> 
> >> in the past?
> >
> >I really hate ignorant reporting, especially from those reporting on
> >the tech industry.
> >
> >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> >EU officials also said they would prefer that the U.S. Department of
> >Commerce, the government body that spawned ICANN in 1998, relinquish
> >control of the root-server system, a master control database of
> >Internet sites that ensures that Web traffic gets to its intended
> >destination..
> >
> >The fear is that in the wrong hands the enormous database could be
> >mined to determine all comings and goings on the Internet. Although
> >there is no evidence that this has happened, the issue has attracted
> >added attention in recent months as law-enforcement officials seek to
> >shore up defenses against feared acts of cyberterrorism.
> >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> >
> >The root zone doesn't need to be mined, it is public.  There is no
> >sane reason to not have it public, and that last paragraph is just
> >plain ignorance.
> >
> >-- 
> >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
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- --
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 #1300
*************************