Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1305
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, June 28 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1305

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:33:54 +0300
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again

At 27.06.2002 08:50, James Love wrote:
>Vittorio, there is a big problem that you should mention.  The Esther/Board version of the at-large is the exact opposite of what it was.  Instead of the public electing their own leaders, now the ICANN board will pick which members of the public can speak for the public.  

I think you get it wrong. The AC members will not be picked
by the Board, but by organizations composed of Internet users.
*IF* the Board should accept and implement such an ALAC at
all. BTW, I believe it's good that these organizations (and 
e.g. their membership lists and resources like web sites and
mailing lists) are not under the control of ICANN. 

>You know.  Like in the old USSR.   As you know, individual cannot join 
>the at large on their own, 

? Individuals can of course join these so-called At Large 
structures; that's the whole point of At Large!

>and ICANN will decide which organizations can join, 
>and ICANN will decide who "really" represents user interests, and how.   

...unless there are good criteria for such organizations 
which can be applied neutrally. 

I'm not highly enthusiastic for the ALAC idea, to make that 
clear. But it *may* be a way the At Large could prove that it's 
not only discussing At Large itself, but also handle issues like 
Whois, new TLDs etc. and have a meaningful role in policy
development. (Don't attack the messenger, please: I believe
that the At Large can do that. Some Board members clearly
don't.)

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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 18:13:03 +0300
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] VeriSign GRS proposes three changes to WLS proposal

Chuck Gomes from VeriSign GRS just proposed three changes to the 
WLS proposal:
- - An Interim Redemption Grace Period implemented with the WLS 
  before the Redemption Grace Period is fully in place
- - No special treatment of existing SnapNames holders
- - Pricing will be simplified, no rebates, set price 24 US$/year

Grant Forsyth now makes the presentation of the Transfer TF.

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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:09:16 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] news from bucharest: at large exists again

- --=======37842AF8=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-13303E5C; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Vittorio,
I do not want to kill your joy. But I understand this does not only kill 
any past hope but also puts an end to any further @large action. Press, 
media and Govs will never consider what even 5.000.000  @large voters you 
might unite might say, versus 200 @large national organizations with puppet 
Chairs paid by the $.25 tax. ICANN has made what we should have made.

I thank you all to have fallen into Esther's and Joop's trap. You will now 
not be able to reverse the trend and the @large AC will exist and will be 
used as a mean of pressure on the GAC and on the ccTLDs. Just accept that 
from now on @large are the ICANN local resident.

This is the complete success of Joe Sims' approach (bravo Joe!). BTW do not 
be too sad: the move was certainly planned a long ago and they only wanted 
you to give it its legitimacy in making it asked by the @large themselves. 
They used Esther initially to be a puppet BoD Chair, they use her again to 
be a puppet @large rep. I am sorry for you all, but you known them for long ...

End of the Internet. I explained yesterday the only solution left.
jfc

On 14:19 27/06/02, Vittorio Bertola said:

>Dear fellow members,
>
>it is worth noting that since five minutes ago, as per Lyman Chapin's
>proposed amendment to the Blueprint exposed while presenting it to the
>public forum, the At Large concept exists again, though with very limited
>prerogatives if compared to the original election of half of the Board. I am
>sure that many of us will complain about this or consider it just a fig
>leaf, but for those (very few) of us who actually bothered to come here to
>Bucharest and spend the last days lobbying for this to happen, it is
>definitely a great achievement, at least as a starting point.
>
>We'll have to discuss (I imagine, very hardly) in the next days whether this
>proposed role (an At Large Advisory Committee similar to the GAC and the
>other ACs) suits us, whether it is acceptable, or whether we should refuse
>to participate in it and try to overturn ICANN as a whole. But at least,
>this is a huge step forward if compared to the "nothing" of the Blueprint
>document.
>--
>.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
>Vittorio Bertola     <[email-masked]>    Ph. +39 011 23381220
>Vitaminic [The Music Evolution] - Vice President for Technology
>
>DISCLAIMER, PLEASE NOTE: This communication is intended only for use by the
>addressee. It may contain confidential or privileged information.
>Transmission, distribution and/or copy cannot be permitted. Please notify
>immediately the sender by replying if you are not the intended recipient.
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.372 / Virus Database: 207 - Release Date: 20/06/02

- --=======37842AF8=======--

- --
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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:36:32 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again

On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, at 17:33 [=GMT+0300], Alexander Svensson wrote:

> I'm not highly enthusiastic for the ALAC idea, to make that
> clear. But it *may* be a way the At Large could prove that it's
> not only discussing At Large itself, but also handle issues like
> Whois, new TLDs etc. and have a meaningful role in policy
> development.

Is it not a bit too much to ask people to invest their (spare) time into
an enterprise that has many signs of be(com)ing ineffective, because of
the way the ICANN Board has so far handled the issue? At-Large efforts of
the Board can all be classified as side-tracking.

> (Don't attack the messenger, please: I believe
> that the At Large can do that. Some Board members clearly
> don't.)

Attack the Board then? :-/

If the Board is serious, it tells us very soon what the criteria will be
for organizations to be allowed to be part of the official At-Large. Until
such info materializes, I would advise anyone not to waste her time.

- --
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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:14:51 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fraud charges filed against WorldCom

Don, Steven, and all assembly members,

  DOn is exactly right, only the truth matters.  The search for the truth
is now on in full force by the SEC, and a growing list of congress
folk not to mention a huge number of interested small investors.
Today it was juts announced by the SEC Mr. Pitt, that ALL of the
WorldCom officers assets have been frozen pending the ongoing
investigation.  It appears, though has yet to be confirmed, that
the WorldCom investigation is widening.

Don Brown wrote:

> If Vint is on the board or an officer, he is culpable, and the post is
> in order.  If he is only an employee, then, the post is out of order.
>
> I don't care if he is the father of Chevrolets and apple pie.  It
> doesn't matter.  Only the truth matters.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 9:46:19 PM, Steven Heath <[email-masked]> wrote:
> SH> Leah Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]] did say:
> >> I really think that was uncalled for, Jeff.  Having read
> >> articles about
> >> these "loans," I saw no mention of Vint Cerf anywhere, nor would I
> >> expect to see his name associated with this case.  I think it is
> >> irresponsible to post using his name in the subject line and
> >> raising a
> >> redd herring needlessly.  It is bad enough that WorldCom is
> >> the subject.
>
> SH> I too am disgusted that someone would even think of this let alone raise it
> SH> on the GA list.
>
> SH> The issue, as far as I can tell, is about moving operation expenses to
> SH> capital accounts (thus spreading these costs over a number of years and thus
> SH> reduce the impact of these costs in that period via deprecation).
>
> SH> Lets let the various enforcement agencies to their work and let the
> SH> employees carry on with their work and not have people cast these aspersive
> SH> remarks.
>
> SH> I think an apology to Vint is in order esp. in these troubled times of both
> SH> ICANN and his employer.
>
> SH> Steven Heath
>
> SH> PS I snipped the original Jeff Williams post which Leah responded to as I
> SH> felt no need to further pollute the list archive with those comments.
>
> SH> --
> SH> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> SH> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> SH> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> SH> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> ----
> 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

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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:30:58 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] news from bucharest: at large exists again

Vittorio and all,

Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> Dear fellow members,
>
> it is worth noting that since five minutes ago, as per Lyman Chapin's
> proposed amendment to the Blueprint exposed while presenting it to the
> public forum, the At Large concept exists again, though with very limited
> prerogatives if compared to the original election of half of the Board.

  The At-Large has existed all along.  What the ICANN BOD and particularly
the ICANN staff have been trying to do is emasculate it to the point of being
nearly worthless and thereby eliminate bottoms-up requirement of the
contractual obligations in the White Paper and MoU...

> I am
> sure that many of us will complain about this or consider it just a fig
> leaf, but for those (very few) of us who actually bothered to come here to
> Bucharest and spend the last days lobbying for this to happen, it is
> definitely a great achievement, at least as a starting point.

  Many of us have been around long before you were ever involved
Vittorio, so if I were you I wouldn't pat myself on the back to
much, while at the same time berate active participants that have
been participating for far longer than you have...

>
>
> We'll have to discuss (I imagine, very hardly) in the next days whether this
> proposed role (an At Large Advisory Committee similar to the GAC and the
> other ACs) suits us, whether it is acceptable, or whether we should refuse
> to participate in it and try to overturn ICANN as a whole. But at least,
> this is a huge step forward if compared to the "nothing" of the Blueprint
> document.

  Either ICANN is revamped through a Rebid or it allows for the
implementation of and At-Large, that it once had that will elect 51%
of the Board members, can put forth resolutions/motions on
or related to issues, and is open to any and all stakeholders
or other interested parties..  It'sjust that simple...

>
> --
> .oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
> Vittorio Bertola     <[email-masked]>    Ph. +39 011 23381220
> Vitaminic [The Music Evolution] - Vice President for Technology
>
> DISCLAIMER, PLEASE NOTE: This communication is intended only for use by the
> addressee. It may contain confidential or privileged information.
> Transmission, distribution and/or copy cannot be permitted. Please notify
> immediately the sender by replying if you are not the intended recipient.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:41:53 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again

Marc, I think you are missing the point.  It will be easy to get your 
organization included in the at-large.org thing.  It just doesn't mean 
anything.   You can't vote or freely choose your own leaders.  You just 
become a volenteer focus group for the staff, and you get used to allow the 
board to claim they have an at large.

Jamie

Marc Schneiders wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, at 17:33 [=GMT+0300], Alexander Svensson wrote:
> 
> 
>>I'm not highly enthusiastic for the ALAC idea, to make that
>>clear. But it *may* be a way the At Large could prove that it's
>>not only discussing At Large itself, but also handle issues like
>>Whois, new TLDs etc. and have a meaningful role in policy
>>development.
> 
> 
> Is it not a bit too much to ask people to invest their (spare) time into
> an enterprise that has many signs of be(com)ing ineffective, because of
> the way the ICANN Board has so far handled the issue? At-Large efforts of
> the Board can all be classified as side-tracking.
> 
> 
>>(Don't attack the messenger, please: I believe
>>that the At Large can do that. Some Board members clearly
>>don't.)
> 
> 
> Attack the Board then? :-/
> 
> If the Board is serious, it tells us very soon what the criteria will be
> for organizations to be allowed to be part of the official At-Large. Until
> such info materializes, I would advise anyone not to waste her time.
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 
> 

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

- --
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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:41:45 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again

Alex and all assembly members,

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> At 27.06.2002 08:50, James Love wrote:
> >Vittorio, there is a big problem that you should mention.  The Esther/Board version of the at-large is the exact opposite of what it was.  Instead of the public electing their own leaders, now the ICANN board will pick which members of the public can speak for the public.
>
> I think you get it wrong. The AC members will not be picked
> by the Board, but by organizations composed of Internet users.

  Yes but the ICANN board PICKS which "Organizations"
of users, will be the ones that will "Select" these representatives.
THAT is in other words, what Jamie was saying.  So Alex,
save us you particular spin, if you don't mind.

>
> *IF* the Board should accept and implement such an ALAC at
> all. BTW, I believe it's good that these organizations (and
> e.g. their membership lists and resources like web sites and
> mailing lists) are not under the control of ICANN.

  Yes they in effect will be under the indirect control of
ICANN, because the ICANN BOD and staff will SELECT
which user group organizations that will than "Select" whom
represents the stakeholders/users.  THAT is frankly just
another shell game!

>
>
> >You know.  Like in the old USSR.   As you know, individual cannot join
> >the at large on their own,
>
> ? Individuals can of course join these so-called At Large
> structures; that's the whole point of At Large!
>
> >and ICANN will decide which organizations can join,
> >and ICANN will decide who "really" represents user interests, and how.
>
> ...unless there are good criteria for such organizations
> which can be applied neutrally.

  And how and whom decides that these are the best or
excepted criterion?  Well in case no one has guessed yet,
it of course will be the present ICANN BoD and staff of course,
which is already not trusted.  Is that representative?  I don't think so...

>
>
> I'm not highly enthusiastic for the ALAC idea, to make that
> clear. But it *may* be a way the At Large could prove that it's
> not only discussing At Large itself, but also handle issues like
> Whois, new TLDs etc. and have a meaningful role in policy
> development. (Don't attack the messenger, please: I believe
> that the At Large can do that. Some Board members clearly
> don't.)
>
> 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

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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:51:56 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Future of the GA and DNSO

I would like to extend my appreciation to those members of the Non-Commercial 
Constituency that demonstrated their courage and commitment to our founding 
principles by raising their voices and acting to protect the rights of the 
General Assembly membership.  Thank you.
- --
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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:55:13 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again

Jamie and all assembly members, stakeholders of other interested parties,

  Indeed right here Jamie.  It sounds an awful lot like form
gerrymandering or pandering to me.  But thank you for
keeping everyone aware.  You have done a wonderful job
doing that so keep up the good work...

James Love wrote:

> Marc, I think you are missing the point.  It will be easy to get your
> organization included in the at-large.org thing.  It just doesn't mean
> anything.   You can't vote or freely choose your own leaders.  You just
> become a volenteer focus group for the staff, and you get used to allow the
> board to claim they have an at large.
>
> Jamie
>
> Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, at 17:33 [=GMT+0300], Alexander Svensson wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'm not highly enthusiastic for the ALAC idea, to make that
> >>clear. But it *may* be a way the At Large could prove that it's
> >>not only discussing At Large itself, but also handle issues like
> >>Whois, new TLDs etc. and have a meaningful role in policy
> >>development.
> >
> >
> > Is it not a bit too much to ask people to invest their (spare) time into
> > an enterprise that has many signs of be(com)ing ineffective, because of
> > the way the ICANN Board has so far handled the issue? At-Large efforts of
> > the Board can all be classified as side-tracking.
> >
> >
> >>(Don't attack the messenger, please: I believe
> >>that the At Large can do that. Some Board members clearly
> >>don't.)
> >
> >
> > Attack the Board then? :-/
> >
> > If the Board is serious, it tells us very soon what the criteria will be
> > for organizations to be allowed to be part of the official At-Large. Until
> > such info materializes, I would advise anyone not to waste her time.
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> ------
> James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
> voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:05:13 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] CPSR/CIVSOC STATEMENT ON THE ICANN AT LARGE MEMBERSHIP

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Fwd: CPSR/CIVSOC STATEMENT ON THE ICANN AT LARGE MEMBERSHIP
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:50:41 -0400
From: "Hans Klein" <[email-masked]>
To: James Love <[email-masked]>,Harold Feld <[email-masked]>

 >Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:47:02 -0400
 >To: [email-masked]
 >From: [email-masked]
 >Subject: CPSR/CIVSOC STATEMENT ON THE ICANN AT LARGE MEMBERSHIP
 >
 >
 >CPSR/CIVSOC STATEMENT ON THE ICANN AT LARGE MEMBERSHIP
 >
 >27 July 2002
 >
 >Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) participates in
 >the ICANN process via the CPSR Civil Society Democracy Project
 >(www.CivSoc.org).  CPSR/CivSoc offers the following statement about its
 >activities that relate to the At Large Membership.
 >
 >CPSR/CivSoc is participating in the At Large Organizing Committee (ALOC),
 >led by Denise Michel and with active participation of Esther Dyson and
 >other individuals.   (See www.at-large.org).  To avoid any confusion that
 >this participation might create, we wish to clarify our views on the
 >status and substantive recommendations of the ALOC.
 >
 >User representation on the ICANN board was the cornerstone of DNS
 >privatization in 1998, and to the extent that the ALOC's activities
 >contribute to the implementation of this, then CPSR/CivSoc supports those
 >activities. All efforts to implement user representation in ICANN -- be
 >they from the ALOC, the Interim Coordinating Committee
 >(www.ICANNmembers.org), the NAIS, or the ALSC - are to be commended.
 >
 >We hasten to point out that the ALOC possesses no special status to
 >represent the user in ICANN processes.  The ALOC is one voice in the
 >on-going effort to implement user representation in ICANN.  Its claim to
 >represent 500,000 users is, in our opinion, not convincing (the numbers
 >derive from one organization's claims of user representation:
 >www.cecua.org.)  Furthermore, the fact that many of the ALOC's
 >participants have little history of participation in ICANN activities
 >lessens its credibility.  Nonetheless, every effort, regardless of its
 >limitations, in support of user representation in ICANN is important and
 >useful.
 >
 >CPSR/CivSoc does not support any activities or positions of the ALOC that
 >are contrary to the terms of Internet privatization.  CPSR/CivSoc does not
 >support relegating users to an "advisory" role, doing away with direct
 >elections, or abandoning the principle of balanced representation between
 >users and industry experts.  We note that many - and, by our tally, most -
 >members of ALOC support direct elections of user representatives to the
 >ICANN board.
 >
 >ICANN can best gain legitimacy by implementing the terms of the 1998
 >privatization agreement.  User representation on the board and direct
 >elections are essential aspects of that.  CPSR/CivSoc's participation in
 >ALOC and other user-related activities are done in order to achieve
 >implementation of those agreements.
 >
 >###

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

- --
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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:24:51 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again

On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, at 12:41 [=GMT-0400], James Love wrote:

> Marc, I think you are missing the point.  It will be easy to get your
> organization included in the at-large.org thing.

I doubt it.

> It just doesn't mean
> anything.

You are right. The Board should inform us about that as well...

> You can't vote or freely choose your own leaders.  You just
> become a volenteer focus group for the staff, and you get used to allow the
> board to claim they have an at large.
>
> Jamie
>
>
>
> Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, at 17:33 [=GMT+0300], Alexander Svensson wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'm not highly enthusiastic for the ALAC idea, to make that
> >>clear. But it *may* be a way the At Large could prove that it's
> >>not only discussing At Large itself, but also handle issues like
> >>Whois, new TLDs etc. and have a meaningful role in policy
> >>development.
> >
> >
> > Is it not a bit too much to ask people to invest their (spare) time into
> > an enterprise that has many signs of be(com)ing ineffective, because of
> > the way the ICANN Board has so far handled the issue? At-Large efforts of
> > the Board can all be classified as side-tracking.
> >
> >
> >>(Don't attack the messenger, please: I believe
> >>that the At Large can do that. Some Board members clearly
> >>don't.)
> >
> >
> > Attack the Board then? :-/
> >
> > If the Board is serious, it tells us very soon what the criteria will be
> > for organizations to be allowed to be part of the official At-Large. Until
> > such info materializes, I would advise anyone not to waste her time.
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ------
> James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:[email-masked]
> voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
>
>

- --
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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:41:56 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Icann Critics Chatroom

Thomas writes:

<< On 2002-06-26 23:23:17 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
 
 >FYI an IRC chatroom has been set up.  Connect to http://www.dal.net,  
 >pick a nickname and type into command line /join #icanncritics
 
 Why do you reserve that one to ICANN _criticis_? >>

I thought about the possibility of icannblueprintsupporters... but I didn't 
want to to be up all night with no one to talk to... we'll chat again in 
another eight hours.
- --
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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:46:19 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Future of the GA and DNSO

These have always been our best supporters and often best contributors.
Funny how that works?

I applaud their efforts also.

I also grieve the loss of the man that introduced me to ICANN.  He always had the
time to talk or correspond with me even though I was not a heavyweight.  He
helped to explain the workings of ccTLDs and I hope I can do his lessons proud.
Bless you Peter.

Sincerely,
Eric

[email-masked] wrote:

> I would like to extend my appreciation to those members of the Non-Commercial
> Constituency that demonstrated their courage and commitment to our founding
> principles by raising their voices and acting to protect the rights of the
> General Assembly membership.  Thank you.
> --
> 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: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 00:12:37 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again

- --=======58DB4C09=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-13303E5C; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 18:41 27/06/02, James Love said:
>   It will be easy to get your organization included in the at-large.org 
> thing.

to date, france@large, the only specificly @large oriented incorporate 
organization I know of and germany@large are not quoted for Europe.

But ISOC and ISOC, but not all the ISOC, are quoted. Are there good and bad 
ISOC ?
jfc

- --=======58DB4C09=======--

- --
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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:40:36 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: news from bucharest: at large exists again

Esther, can you explain this?

J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> On 18:41 27/06/02, James Love said:
> 
>>   It will be easy to get your organization included in the 
>> at-large.org thing.
> 
> 
> to date, france@large, the only specificly @large oriented incorporate 
> organization I know of and germany@large are not quoted for Europe.
> 
> But ISOC and ISOC, but not all the ISOC, are quoted. Are there good and 
> bad ISOC ?
> jfc

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

- --
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: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 21:44:23 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Bucharest, June 27, 2002

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Random-bits] Bucharest, June 27, 2002
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 21:35:14 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>

ICANN meeting in Bucharest, June 27, 2002

Today was grueling, in part because no one is getting much
sleep and some tempers are short.  Last evening the 11
.org bids were presented  and today there was an ICANN
public forum, which lasted all day.  I'll start with a few
words about the .org bid process.

            DOT ORG

The various applications are quite detailed and take a
while to understand.  Nearly all of them appear to be
mostly for the benefit of for profit companies, with an
occasional non-profit group or "policy body" as window
dressing, and maybe some true non-profits, as the IMS and
Internet Software Consortium appears to be.  It cost $35k
just to provide a bid that most people thought was wired
for ISOC/Afilias from the beginning, but there were still
11 bids, all of them serious.  The asset is worth a lot.
With a ~$5-6 per domain wholesale price and a cost of $1
to $2.5 to operate (according to some bidders) with 2.3
million registrations, I have heard estimates that .org is
worth $35 to $100+ million, for #35k is cheap.

There is a lot of talk about Verisign, Register.com
and maybe some others having a stake in more
than one bid.  ICANN had a "consensus"
recommendation to award the bid to a non-profit, but at
the urging of Robert Blokzijl and other board members, the
ICANN board decided to eliminate the non-profit
requirement in Accra.  Rober Blokzijl's wife worked for
Nuestar, one of the commercial bidders who is not teamed
up with a non-profit, and. now Blokzijl is named as
potential board member for Organic Names, another
commercial only bidder..  Someone said Blokzijl and Amadeu
Abril Abril have recused themselves on org at this
meeting, but Amadeu was questioning some of the bidders
anyway.

People who were working on this said the ICANN staff did a
decent job of following the ICANN Names Council
recommendation on the .org bid, which Milton Mueller
worked on (given the fact that the ICANN board got rid of
one of the primary requirements, that the bid be given to
non-profit).

I had raised concerns much earlier about the bidding
system, and had asked the ICANN staff and board to have a
two stage process, where it picked the non-profit first,
and then the non-profit picked the operator.  My thinking
was that the non-profit would then have serious bargaining
power, and could get the operator for a competitive price,
maybe $1 or less per year per domain (creating an
interesting PR issue for the .com and other TLD registries
that charge up to $6 per name, wholesale)..   The two
stage bid wasn't done, and as I had predicted, most bids
are financed and controlled by the operators, who will
make a bundle if the ICANN board likes them enough.  Like
a lot of what goes on here it is about who makes money
off domain names.

            Transparency issues

Well, I asked the ICANN board to stick to the unofficial
secret meetings, and stop holding official secret
meetings, a serous point that got a laugh. I also asked
them to follow the DNSO Names Council example and provide
MP3 files of their telephone meetings, which currently are
closed and not recorded.  Next, I asked what ICANN was
spending on its litigation with Karl Auerbach over his
efforts to have access to the ICANN books, and was told I
could not have that information by Stuart Lynn.  I sent
Stuart and Vint a follow up message and talked to Vint and
Hans, but apparently not only are the ICANN books secret,
the amount of money spent on lawyers to keep it secret is
also secret.  One would like to complain to the GAC about
this, but they also hold secret meetings, give the ICANN
board secret documents, and won't meet with the public, so
this is hard to do.

            At-Large

Back in the old days when democracy was considered a good
thing, "at large" membership meant you allowed individuals
to elect people to the board.  The ICANN board was
supposed to have 9 elected members, then 5, then maybe 3,
and more recently, and far more pathetically, maybe 1 of
19 members of a nominating committee that elected only
part of the board.   But apparently it can get even worse.
Now Esther Dyson, Denise Michel and Lyman Chapin are
pursuing a version of this that would seem more
appropriate for Romania or the USSR in the "old" days..
The new idea for the "at large" is to have ICANN determine
which groups "really" represent user interests, and to
manage their "constructive input" into the ICANN process,
sans elections for anything.  Also, this apparently (in
Lyman Chapin's proposal) provides a nice opportunity for
the board to further stack the ICANN "NomCom", which is
the body that is supposed to pick ICANN board members.
and maybe other "bottom up" other bodies  Apparently if
you pick your cronies but call them the "at large" you can
do this.

            GAC

The GAC communique was long and detailed, and reflected a
highly unusual amount of dissent among GAC member
countries, almost as if they had minds of their own.  The
scribe's notes will probably do justice to the fine points,
but allow me to briefly complain about my own GAC member,
the USG.  Earlier (a while ago) Robin Layton had promised
many NGOs that the US would demand that ICANN address
civil society concerns.   None of this was reflected in
the GAC communique.  The fact that ICANN holds secret
meetings, refused to record its telephone board meetings,
doesn't disclose how it spends its money, has proposed
eliminating elections for individuals, won't allow the GA
to vote or elect its own chair, has transformed the "at
large" into a board/staffed managed PR exercise, is acting
more like a cartel than a consumer protection agency, and
has refused to implement the independent review process is
of course just great, as long as this is "private sector
led."  DoC's Robin Layton has done a great job of avoiding
eye contact all week, so we haven't had a chance to
understand why we are getting zero action from DoC yet.
But I am informed that Robin is doing a good job of
keeping track of the FBI's concerns over WHOIS data, and
in close touch with US registry groups bidding on .org, so
I guess this is all a matter of priorities.

My own presentation to the GAC was cut short, as usual, by
Vint Cerf, who seems to have made a point this week of
interrupting me from making any tough criticism of the
ICANN process.   Before Vint stopped me yet again from
expressing any criticism of ICANN, I was telling Paul
Towmey, the private sector former Australian government
employee (who reportedly has a  business with former
Clinton administration official Ira Magaziner) but still
chairs the GAC, that we would like to know which
international policy making group is willing to talk to
civil society.  It is quite clear that ICANN itself is not
making any space at all for civil society or consumer
concerns, and is only interested in business interests,
and so it is natural to ask, if not ICANN, who can we talk
to on matters such as intellectual property policy,
privacy, consumer protection, transparency, conflicts of
interest, or competition policy?   The GAC communique
seemed to say that the GAC is the body that must control
all of these issues.  Of course, the GAC is more closed to
civil society than any international body on earth, so
this makes us wonder, what are we supposed to do?
Nothing?

            Evolution and Reform  and Debate

It was long, it was interesting, it was a lot of going
along to get along, but not always, and it was a lot of
loose ends, particularly in terms of if the registries
would pay for ICANN.

My contribution had to be brief and focused.  Vint Cerf
had cut me off every time I had talked on other issues,
and of course, he did it once again.  I started with
thanking Alejandro Pisanty and Vint for their willingness
to engage us in the debate, and for making some real
changes in the really bad earlier proposals, to the
current confusingly vague elitist proposals.  (actually
stated much more diplomatically).  I noted the problems
with transparency, nuking elections of individuals while
keeping them for self selected business groups, and talked
a bit about the NomCom proposal (the group that will
actually elect ICANN board members),, and the decision to
strip the GA of the ability to elect its own leaders.
Then I switched gears and talked about mechanisms to
decentralize ICANN decision making

I noted that I had engaged in extensive discussions of
decentralization with Alejandro and Vint,on this topic,
which had been ignored completely in the June 20 report.
What we proposed was to acknowledge that there were few
benefits in a "one size fits all" DNS regulatory approach,
and that the process should reverse gears, and explore
ways that global coordination would be minimalist.

I said, for example, that ICANN
didn't need to do every regulatory function with new TLDS,
they only  needed to address issues such as uniquenesses
of TLD strings, and whatever minimum standards for IP and
consumer protection policy that were considered necessary
from a global perspective, and to encourage others to
address as many issues as possible.  In my "several
gatekeepers" comment, I talked about a scenario with about
7 or more mini-ICANNs, for different types of TLDs, each
with its own management structure and objectives.  These
included a ccTLD group, 1 for treaty based organizations,
2 for commercial gTLDs groups, one for non-commercial, one
for academic and one more I can't remember, as starters.
The idea is to prevent a single group from becoming a
barrier to innovation or competition (exactly what has
happened in ICANN), and to create some competition among
groups, so that people could choose where to register
domains.

In this view, if you created competition among
"gatekeeopers", there would be incentives to "get it
right."   Every busiess thaqt wanted to run a TLD string
would have to be adopted by a "mini-DNSO."  Mini DNSOs that
had too much or too little consumer protection would not
be able to attract much market share.  At this point, Vint cut me
off.  As I walked away, Alejandro said that he could never
understand how the decentralization would work,
technically.  If I had the opportunity to talk, I would
have discussed the many different ways that this could
work in terms of "solving" the uniqueness, issue,such as
first come first serve, lotteries or arbitration based
upon merit.  But I am exhausted, and will turn in.

Jamie

- --------earlier notes------------------

In the public forum, Esther Dyson and Denise Michel just presented the
at-large proposal.  It is essentially a top down proposal, which allows
organizations but not individuals to join, and will later develop a yet to
be defined method of managing public input.  The group not only did not
propose the development of any mechanisms for votes by individuals, but its
only suggested the board "consider" allowing this effort to "select" its own
steering committee, and even then, under "Board-approved guidelines."

http://www.at-large.org/submission-to-evolution-and-reform-cmt.htm
"We also recommend the Board consider allowing the At-Large Supporting
Organization to select their Steering Committee and Board members under
Board-approved guidelines/criteria."

Vint asked Denise if there would be methods of determining if the
representatives of these groups actually represented the interests of their
own users, and elaborated on his concern that they may only represent their
own views.  Denise said that they would be working on this issue, and Esther
took the floor and discribe a system used by two merging corporations to
confidentially poll (shareholders/stakeholders?).   She also noted that when
the results were contrary to what was desired, the poll results were not
made public, and then she suggested this polling firm might be available to
provide services for the at-large structures consultation.  It was not
obvious why Esther had come up with this example, or where she was going
with it.   There was another exchange regarding Esther's comment that she
hoped for the development of "parties" that cut across regions, prompting
Vint to indicate that he hoped this would not happen, which prompted Esther
to appear to back off, and Denise to emphasize their understanding that the
process would be managed in such as way to help faciliate consensus.

There were several persons in the room who have worked on At Large efforts,
including for example Aizu Izumi, Vittorio Bertola and Wolfgang
Kleinwaechter, who were recently elected leaders for incannatlarge.com[1],
Esther's previous at-large effort, and persons who were involved in the NAIS
and ALSC efforts.  Only two persons from the floor spoke on the Michel/Dyson
report, myself and Harold Felt from Media Access Project, a US NGO that
works on free speech issues.

I began by noting that we are meeting in Romania, a country that has only
recently abandoned a governance system that limited political freedom.  I
said that I opposed the top down managed public particpation system that
Denise and Esther were proposing, and that it was likely to be used to
control and supress criticism of ICANN, and that if ICANN was to get the
trust of the public and governments, there had to be mechanisms for people
to freely express opposition to its policies, and to freely choose their own
leaders.   I noted that ICANN is comfortable allowing a handful of select
selected businesses represent all businesses on earth, but was unwilling to
allow individuals to represent themselve directly, even in a structure that
has little or no real power.

Vint said the board was short on time, and I was cut off.  There will be
further opportunties to discuss these issues later during the period to
discuss the ERC report.

Harold Felt echoed some concerns about the at-large proposal.

[1]  I was also elected to the "temporary" steering committee of
icannatlarge.com.  This body was supposed to hold a new election within 90
days.  When it became clear that the panel was not going to hold a new
election within the 90 days, I resigned.

- -----------
Note, we have since resolved the date of the elections..... and my
resignation has been withdrawn.

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

_______________________________________________
Random-bits mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits

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

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

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

- --
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 #1305
*************************