Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1306
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, June 28 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1306

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:04:13 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Bucharest, June 27, 2002

Jamie and all assembly members,

  Thank you Jamie for these fine and detailed to some degree notes
regarding the events from Bucharest.  I am sure many shall remember
them for years to come.

  I was not surprised myself to here of Vint Cerfs continuing
interrupting you regarding getting to some issues and questions.
As Vint is not under some scrutiny, and will be in some heat
when returning to the US regarding the WorldCom Fraud
Scandal that is seemingly widening almost hourly.  His history
with Money matters in the GIP and with his relationship with
than new friend G. Soros, whom at that time frame had lost
his investment customers some $1b US.  However the BoD
o Worldcom has topped that by loosing their stockholders
some $3.7b and misreporting, knowingly falsely stating
their revenue, and engaging in reselling network services
to their own affiliates and wholly own subsidiaries at
highly inflated process and then improperly writing them off
in tax filings at some 1/3 of the actual cost, ect., ect.,...

  The ICANN sick saga seems to get far worse than
it was in '99 as you have rightly pointed out and that
the GAC rep to whom Nancy J. Victory requested
stakeholder/users to address their concerns to
as you seem to be noticing is about a helpful
as fly swatter on a bear hunt.

James Love wrote:

> -------- 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

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 23:23:55 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Call for outcry

This I cannot cotton and wholly condemn.
We must stand firm and together and oppose this thing.
If ever there was a time for outcry, now would be it.
Please stand together with me and others and oppose this.
Our dot commoners will be done by this deed it must be opposed.
Please voice your objection.

Sincerely,
Eric

Lawrence Solum wrote:

> At approximately 11:00 a.m. Bucharest time, Vint Cerf has introduced a
> resolution to approve the blueprint without any modifications.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [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: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 02:37:03 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for outcry

It was a pre-determined outcome, Eric.  They decided in their secret 
meeting the other day to approve it.  The rest of the discussion was a 
sham.  The time for an outcry was long ago when the public was totally 
unaware.  It's a done deal now.  Score - ICANN 100, dotcommers 0.

Leah

On 27 Jun 2002, at 23:23, [email-masked] wrote:

> This I cannot cotton and wholly condemn.
> We must stand firm and together and oppose this thing.
> If ever there was a time for outcry, now would be it.
> Please stand together with me and others and oppose this.
> Our dot commoners will be done by this deed it must be opposed.
> Please voice your objection.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Eric
> 
> Lawrence Solum wrote:
> 
> > At approximately 11:00 a.m. Bucharest time, Vint Cerf has introduced a
> > resolution to approve the blueprint without any modifications.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]
> 
> --
> 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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 04:31:08 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Grace and Redemption

Well, the board approved it, but I still have a question that no one 
seems to have addressed.

If an expired domain is placed on registry hold and no longer resolves, 
and the contact email is based on that domain, how will the registrant 
be able to "undelete" it or move it to another registrar to redeem it if 
there can be no contact?  

It seems to me that there should be some resolution to this question or 
what good is the Grace and Redemption perioid?  The only other means 
to communicate in this scenario, would be by telephone.  Some of the 
registrars do not even list their phone numbers on their websites and 
there would be little time to handle it via snail mail.

Anyone have any comments?

Leah

- --
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 05:03:00 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Andy to speak at NY Hacker's Convention

Forwarded from the ISOC-NY list:

Hackers on Planet Earth is, in its class, the best convention whose
invitation is openly published.  It is also better than all but fourteen
secret gatherings.  It costs $50 to attend/help out on the money side, and
nothing if you can hack your way in.

If you want to help out on the money side, and/or if you are not sure you
possess 1337 1n9r3&&-Fu, you should register before the end of
Friday 28 June 2002.

http://store.yahoo.com/2600hacker/h2k2hope2002.html

This year's Hackers on Planet Earth blowout is called H2K2 and will run
from 12 July through 14 July 2002.  The center of mass public activity is
the Hotel Pennsylvania on the Island of the Manhattoes.  The Hotel Penn, as
she is affectionately known by those who know her, is on 7th Avenue and
runs from 32nd Street to 33rd Street.

The announced list of speakers and topics is long, impressive, and much
apposite to the present concourse of perils.

- --------------------------------------------
For the conference agenda and speaker's list:
http://h2k2.net/panels.html

Excerpt:

"Fucking Up the Internet at ICANN: Global Control Through the Domain Name 
System and How to Escape"

Did you know that the entire Internet domain structure is controlled by a 
mysterious group called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 
Numbers (ICANN)? Andy Mueller-Maguhn, longtime member and spokesman of 
Germany's Chaos Computer Club and currently elected from European users to be 
on the board of ICANN, will explain the latest developments at ICANN and how 
the mixture of intellectual property and governmental interests affects the 
freedom of the Internet. Paul Garrin, founder of name.space and 
FREE.THE.MEDIA!, will talk about his initiatives to establish rights to 
access to the legacy ROOT.ZONE, from the historical antitrust action against 
Network Solutions in 1997 through the US Department of Commerce's IFWP 
process (the predecessor to ICANN), and Name.Space's $50,000.00 TLD 
application to ICANN in 2000 (ICANN kept the money and took three TLD's 
previously published by Name.Space). The question is raised: Is there hope 
for seeking fair access to the legacy ROOT.ZONE through due process or is it 
time to treat ICANN as "damage" and route around it? 
- --
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 05:11:05 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] CPTech statement on ICANN meeting

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: CPTech statement on ICANN meeting
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 05:07:32 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>

CPTech statement on ICANN meeting
Friday -  June 28, 2002

"I've posted a number of reports from here which reflect our views on the
ICANN meeting, but now that the Board has approved with June 20 Blueprint
plan, one week after anyone had seen it, it is time for governments to wake
up and look at what is being created.  Despite countless letters from the US
Congress and contractual requirements to do so, ICANN is refusing to create
an independent review panel.  ICANN is eliminating the ability of
individuals to freely debate issues with the ICANN system, even going so far
as to remove the ability of the public to elect their own leaders or have
votes in public forums that have no legal power.  The original concept of a
public "at-large" membership that would elect board members has been
replaced with cynical top down staff/board managed PR exercise that will
ironically be used by the board to pack key committees,including the new
"NomCom" with cronies.  Esther Dyson, who is making a career out of
protecting ICANN from its critics or government oversight is currently in
charge of deciding who "really" speaks for the public, and what constitutes
"constructive" input.  This is a huge mistake, because Esther is completely
out of touch with the public, and would likely have no support in any
at-large strucutre that was democratic.

The board can freely meet in secret, and makes no efforts to even record
telephone board meetings, even when making decions that effect millions of
internet users, such as the delegation of .org, a "business" that is
probably worth $40 to $100 million.  It will not provide its own board
members access to its books, or tell the public how much ICANN is spending
on litigation to prevent such access.

Everyone is searching to understand what the new "reformed" ICANN is, and it
appears to be partly like the unacccountable International Olympic Committee
(IOC), and partly like OPEC.  The clique of insiders who control ICANN are
not willing to give up control, the unelected board members who promised
years ago to leave ICANN are still there, and the at-large elected members
will soon be moved off the board.

The GAC itself is part of the problem.  It does not meet with the public, is
surounded by secrecy itself, and has done nothing at all to address the
transparency or accountability issues for itself or ICANN.  The member
countries for the GAC should hold public consultations at home and also
jointly to allow civil society to have a voice.  The Internet is too
important, ICANN's proposals for policy making authority too sweeping and
ambitious, and the costs of cartel like activity too high to allow ICANN to
operate outside of all known systems of accountablity.

Most important, the GAC and the member countries have to allow new ideas for
DNS management to be given a fair hearing, the subject of the last motions
the ICANN General Assembly was permited to vote on.  At yesterday's meeting
the ICANN board said it did not understand how it could decentralize policy
making, as if there were some technical hurdles it could not overcome.  This
of course is no more true than saying the entire global phone system should
be regulated by a single agency just become someone has to allocate country
codes for phones.    The entire DNS management issue needs to be much more
decentralized, and the groups that act as gatekeepers to new TLDs should be
spit up and put into a new framework that would have pro-competitive
incentives, and give the public a choice and also a chance to create TLDs
that they can control themselves.  We expect to participate in a meeting on
these and other ICANN issues on September 9-10 in Geneva, and we ask others
who are interested in serious policy discussions about ICANN to also
participate."

Jamie

- ------
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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:59:35 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Karl?

I'm wondering why Karl didn't attend the board meeting.  Or did I 
miss his contribution?
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:04:44 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Peter

- --=======357FED0=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-63A535E4; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Ron,
I understand you are now the .vi manager together with Mrs. Dotty de Blanc. 
I would like to tell you on  behalf of the small team of france@large 
members and in my personal name all the firendship and all the respect we 
had for Peter. His peacefull, forecefull and balanced vision of the ccTLD 
network system will be certainly missed. We also had the opportunity to 
meet and I will regret the person as well as the leader. I apologize for my 
Frenglish, but I wanted you, his spouse and his family to know that we are 
several thinking we lost the true Internet inspirer.
jfcm
france@large

- --=======357FED0=======--

- --
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 09:56:58 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

I'm sure "they" did not even consider this level of detail, Leah, most of 
these people can barely use computers.

~k

At 04:31 AM 6/28/2002 -0400, L. Gallegos wrote:
>Well, the board approved it, but I still have a question that no one
>seems to have addressed.
>
>If an expired domain is placed on registry hold and no longer resolves,
>and the contact email is based on that domain, how will the registrant
>be able to "undelete" it or move it to another registrar to redeem it if
>there can be no contact?
>
>It seems to me that there should be some resolution to this question or
>what good is the Grace and Redemption perioid?  The only other means
>to communicate in this scenario, would be by telephone.  Some of the
>registrars do not even list their phone numbers on their websites and
>there would be little time to handle it via snail mail.
>
>Anyone have any comments?
>
>Leah
>
>--
>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 08:52:24 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

Friday, June 28, 2002, 1:31:08 AM, L. Gallegos wrote:

> Well, the board approved it, but I still have a question that no one 
> seems to have addressed.

> If an expired domain is placed on registry hold and no longer resolves, 
> and the contact email is based on that domain, how will the registrant 
> be able to "undelete" it or move it to another registrar to redeem it if 
> there can be no contact?  

> It seems to me that there should be some resolution to this question or 
> what good is the Grace and Redemption perioid?  The only other means 
> to communicate in this scenario, would be by telephone.  Some of the 
> registrars do not even list their phone numbers on their websites and 
> there would be little time to handle it via snail mail.

> Anyone have any comments?

Personal Responsibility.

- -- 
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: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 13:50:44 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

> Personal Responsibility.

Mr. Walsh is correct.   Some people simply are beyond help, and those people
who use an email address based on the domain name itself as the contact email
address for the domain are dumb beyond any assistance that can be provided by
any policy.

No matter what is done, people will lose domain names due to their own
mismanagement, and will seek to blame others for what they have done to
themselves.

- --
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 13:54:54 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

I have to agree. If your phone gets disconnected, it doesnt matter if
its because you 'thought you had paid' but hadnt or if its turly telco
error or lost cheque.  You still have to go visit a neighbour, or use a
cell phone or trundle down to find a pay phone just to establish what
the problem is and see if you have to do something (like pay). It's your
repsonisibility to find a way to do this.

William X Walsh wrote:
> 
> Friday, June 28, 2002, 1:31:08 AM, L. Gallegos wrote:
> 
> > Well, the board approved it, but I still have a question that no one
> > seems to have addressed.
> 
> > If an expired domain is placed on registry hold and no longer resolves,
> > and the contact email is based on that domain, how will the registrant
> > be able to "undelete" it or move it to another registrar to redeem it if
> > there can be no contact?
> 
> > It seems to me that there should be some resolution to this question or
> > what good is the Grace and Redemption perioid?  The only other means
> > to communicate in this scenario, would be by telephone.  Some of the
> > registrars do not even list their phone numbers on their websites and
> > there would be little time to handle it via snail mail.
> 
> > Anyone have any comments?
> 
> Personal Responsibility.
> 
> --
> 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

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:54:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> > Personal Responsibility.
>
> Mr. Walsh is correct.   Some people simply are beyond help, and those people
> who use an email address based on the domain name itself as the contact email
> address for the domain are dumb beyond any assistance that can be provided by
> any policy.
>
> No matter what is done, people will lose domain names due to their own
> mismanagement, and will seek to blame others for what they have done to
> themselves.

I disagree.  I think it depend on how you look at it - operations.  In a
trully free internet - i.e. anything but the ICANN/USG dog and pony show -
one can associate with a group of people who want permanency in their
email contact addresses and for a tld speciically for that purpose - and
they can run it themselved on a purly volunteer basis.  After all - our
devoted god and saviour jon postel ran it by himself before he handed
control over to the doc/icann goons.

love and kisses
from joe and enza

- --
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 16:56:29 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Grace and Redemption

My point is that the registrant has to use the email address to contact 
the system in order to verify the transaction (email verification).  Many 
registrants use their domain for email and some even just for email, so 
that they do not have to continually change email addresses if they 
change ISPs, etc.  So, going to a neighbor to use his email addy is not 
going to do anything.  It won't compute.  That has been one of the 
bugaboos when people do change email addresses due to ISP 
changes, especially when it is due to an ISP failure or other emergency 
change.  Suddenly one can't do anything about modifying domain 
information and it all has to be done by phone.  With Verisign it is 
extremely painful to do anything via phone or fax.  Other registrars do 
not even make their phone numbers public - or at least easy to find.  

It is an issue whether some feel otherwise or not.

The telephone or electric bill analogy is not a good one, IMO, since 
most people would be able to deal with that simply - by using another 
phone.  Verification of an email address is not necessary, nor is 
verification of the number from which you are calling.

Leah

On 28 Jun 2002, at 13:54, Dan Steinberg wrote:

> I have to agree. If your phone gets disconnected, it doesnt matter if
> its because you 'thought you had paid' but hadnt or if its turly telco
> error or lost cheque.  You still have to go visit a neighbour, or use a
> cell phone or trundle down to find a pay phone just to establish what
> the problem is and see if you have to do something (like pay). It's your
> repsonisibility to find a way to do this.
> 
> William X Walsh wrote:
> > 
> > Friday, June 28, 2002, 1:31:08 AM, L. Gallegos wrote:
> > 
> > > Well, the board approved it, but I still have a question that no one
> > > seems to have addressed.
> > 
> > > If an expired domain is placed on registry hold and no longer resolves,
> > > and the contact email is based on that domain, how will the registrant
> > > be able to "undelete" it or move it to another registrar to redeem it if
> > > there can be no contact?
> > 
> > > It seems to me that there should be some resolution to this question or
> > > what good is the Grace and Redemption perioid?  The only other means
> > > to communicate in this scenario, would be by telephone.  Some of the
> > > registrars do not even list their phone numbers on their websites and
> > > there would be little time to handle it via snail mail.
> > 
> > > Anyone have any comments?
> > 
> > Personal Responsibility.
> > 
> > --
> > 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
> 
> -- 
> Dan Steinberg
> 
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
> --
> 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 #1306
*************************