Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #131
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, August 31 2000          Volume 01 : Number 131

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 13:35:19 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

At 09:39 AM 8/30/00 +0200, you wrote:

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

I think you've just seen the light.

But what is left in the DNSO now aside from the GA and Names Council?

What is the accountability mechanism?

Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

- --
It's a feature not a bug...

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 16:22:52 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Clarification w/r/t Jonathan Cohen's Involvement in Working Group B

I am writing this email in response to a posting last week regarding
Jonathan Cohen's involvement in Working Group B. Let me begin by disclosing
that I nominated Jonathan for reelection to the ICANN Board. I believe that
I am qualified to describe Jonathan's involvement in Working Group B, as I
was the original co-chair with Jonathan. After his election to the ICANN
Board, I functioned as sole chair for several months until the Names Counsel
appointed Kathy Kleiman and Philip Sheppard as joint Names Counsel Liaisons.

Working Group B was created last May at the regional ICANN meeting in
Berlin, Germany, along with Working Groups A & C. Jonathan Cohen and Amadeu
Abril were appointed co-chairs of Working Group A. Because of some of the
criticisms surrounding the procedures in Working Group A, it was decided
that the one co-chair would be appointed by the Names Council and the other
would be elected by the groups participants. I was elected as the alternate
chair by default when no one else expressed an interest. This election took
place prior to the ICANN Regional meeting in Santiago, Chile.

At this time, Working Group B was still in the formative stage, with no more
than twenty initial members. After the Santiago meeting, Jonathan announced
his intention to run for a position on the ICANN Board. Following this
announcement, Jonathan undertook a less visible role within the Working
Group B process, although he continued to offer his insight and expertise
leading up to the election.

After his election to the ICANN Board for a period of one year, I continued
to serve as the sole chair of Working Group B until the appointment of Kathy
and Philip by the Names Counsel several months later.

Having made this clarification, I would like to offer my insights on some of
the candidates running for election to the ICANN Board from the DNSO.

The reason that I nominated Jonathan for reelection was because of his
diverse skill set and his record to date. Two of the bigger challenges
facing the ICANN Board in the near future are overseeing the proof of
concept phase for new top-level domains, including any potential issues
involving the intellectual property community, and increasing involvement
among ccTLD registry operators in the ICANN process. I believe that Jonathan
is uniquely qualified to handles these challenges based upon his expertise
as an intellectual property attorney and in his involvement in the Canadian
ccTLD registry.

Although I believe that Jonathan is the most qualified candidate for
election to the Board, there are several other candidates with impressive
credentials that could make a contribution to the Board. For example, Jamie
Love has recently became a very active participant within the ICANN process.
The best word to describe Jamie is passionate. Although I may not always
agree with Jamie's viewpoints, I respect his unwavering dedication to his
beliefs. I personally hope that Jamie considers running for the recently
vacant Names Counsel position within the Non-Commercial Constituency. I
believe that involvement at the Names Counsel level will provide Jamie with
some valuable hands on experience with regard to the ICANN process.

Turning my attention to Ron Weikers, I have know Ron for several years and
use to working with him at a law firm in Philadelphia. Although Ron has a
solid technical and legal background, he is a relative newcomer to the ICANN
process. I have reservations about his ability to get up to speed on the
issues confronting the Board, specifically those involving the ccTLDs.

With regard to the remaining candidates, Peter LeBlanc appears to be a
popular candidate although I have never had the privilege of meeting him. I
have a great deal of respect for several of the people that have endorsed
his candidacy. Peter's strength appears to be in the ccTLD community, which
as mentioned above is highly important at this point in time. In reading
Peter's acceptance/position statement, however, it appears that his primary
focus is advancing the interests of the ccTLD community. I believe that the
strongest candidate should be the one that has his/her finger on the pulse
of every constituency.

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:50:13 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Jamie,
I thank you for your responses. I certainly renew my support to you 
(right now my PIN does not work - has someone else the same problem?)

>   From a perspective of national law in most developed countries, I
>think we are past the point where there is a serious effort to assert
>that domain names have nothing to do with trademarks.

The UDRP 'contract' is a selfcontained document. It defines the words 
and concepts it is about (it could not work otherwise). It does not define 
what a domain name is: IMHO it cannot rule about DNs.

I work in this area for 25 years, I own 4000 DNs, I initiated the X121 
numbering plan of 30 countries, I develop some variations of the DNS, 
I head two comities for new TLDs, and I still do not know what a domain 
name is, technically, gramatically, legally. I am only sure it is not what
most of the WIPO arbitrators think it is. 

BTW, I feel the real problem of the DNSO is not its constituancies, 
but that its constituancies correspond to different interests/cultures
understanding DNs in different ways. 

>> - is the address semantic part for IP or part of free speech? I explain: is
>> there a difference for you between http://support.france.ibm.com (Saxon
>> semantic) and http://support.ibm-france.com (Latin semantic)
>
>    I don't understand the point you are making here.  However, in my
>opinion, domain names are speech, and the public has legitimate
>interests in using domains names for speech.

1)  you make clear that domain names belong to the freedom of speech.
     So I have the right to call you any name I want (Jamie, IBM, Koreinthion, 
     ...). But you have not the right to *publish* that you want to be called 
    "MicroSoft" (should you have that strange idea). 

2)  semantic belongs to the international domain names issue as well as
     characater sets, semantic has an equal importance in string 
     memorization. In Chinese charcaters ars semantic. One of the problem
     of cybersquatting is the lack of semantic concern (hey register names 
     which share the semantic of a comemrcial concept), UDRP uses 
     rules of semantic not used at registration time. The .SYS WS's
     ".sys" TLD is based upon a simple semantic: registrants do not 
     register domain names but formats of domain names (not ibm-france.sys, 
     ibm-uk.sys, but ibm-*.sys). Rate structure is totaly different. IP issues 
     too.

3)  there are several semantics on the net to obtain IP addresses:
     -  direct IP address   http://123.123.32.21
     -  domain names http://icann.org
     -  real names : microsoft
     -  search engines: yahoo.com then "ford car" which may eventually
        lead you to the Renault site.
     -  http://anyhing.anything.wiz by the .WiZ Web Semantic association.
     In most of them domain names have disapeared and are only kept as
     CNAMES.

>I wish I knew more about where things are going in terms of IP numbering
>managment.  I was looking at this page today, trying to appreciate the
>privacy consequences:
>http://www.arin.net/announcements/policy_changes.html

True. But FYI the real issue is the necessary IP addressing plan which may
/will pave the way to Big Brother(s).

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

1) I want to introduce two restricted TLDs, managed by beneficiaries, bringing
    innovation and modifying the IP conception of Domain Names.
    Consulted, WIPO did not commented yet. 
    I think they would be better introduced as a DNSO level through commercial 
    comities payng K$50.

2) there is no technical limitation of the number of TLDs.  Would Bill gates
    want to take the web he only has to righfully modify IE to use the
    MS-roots and offer millions of TLDs. I do not use the ICANN root on my PC
    for more than one year.

>I am concerned that ICANN will impose fees on at large voting rights.

I suspected it. Not to really get money but to get dedicated worshipers?
Always the same old tricks.

Best regards.
Jefsey

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 17:01:14 -0700
From: Kristy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Clarification w/r/t Jonathan Cohen's Involvement in Working Group B

Do any of these folks have any technical knowledge of the systems?

Could any of these folks build a network and get it online with hardware and
software only to help them along?

?

~k

At 01:22 PM 8/30/2000 , Michael D. Palage wrote:
>I am writing this email in response to a posting last week regarding
>Jonathan Cohen's involvement in Working Group B. Let me begin by disclosing
>that I nominated Jonathan for reelection to the ICANN Board. I believe that
>I am qualified to describe Jonathan's involvement in Working Group B, as I
>was the original co-chair with Jonathan. After his election to the ICANN
>Board, I functioned as sole chair for several months until the Names Counsel
>appointed Kathy Kleiman and Philip Sheppard as joint Names Counsel Liaisons.
>
>Working Group B was created last May at the regional ICANN meeting in
>Berlin, Germany, along with Working Groups A & C. Jonathan Cohen and Amadeu
>Abril were appointed co-chairs of Working Group A. Because of some of the
>criticisms surrounding the procedures in Working Group A, it was decided
>that the one co-chair would be appointed by the Names Council and the other
>would be elected by the groups participants. I was elected as the alternate
>chair by default when no one else expressed an interest. This election took
>place prior to the ICANN Regional meeting in Santiago, Chile.
>
>At this time, Working Group B was still in the formative stage, with no more
>than twenty initial members. After the Santiago meeting, Jonathan announced
>his intention to run for a position on the ICANN Board. Following this
>announcement, Jonathan undertook a less visible role within the Working
>Group B process, although he continued to offer his insight and expertise
>leading up to the election.
>
>After his election to the ICANN Board for a period of one year, I continued
>to serve as the sole chair of Working Group B until the appointment of Kathy
>and Philip by the Names Counsel several months later.
>
>Having made this clarification, I would like to offer my insights on some of
>the candidates running for election to the ICANN Board from the DNSO.
>
>The reason that I nominated Jonathan for reelection was because of his
>diverse skill set and his record to date. Two of the bigger challenges
>facing the ICANN Board in the near future are overseeing the proof of
>concept phase for new top-level domains, including any potential issues
>involving the intellectual property community, and increasing involvement
>among ccTLD registry operators in the ICANN process. I believe that Jonathan
>is uniquely qualified to handles these challenges based upon his expertise
>as an intellectual property attorney and in his involvement in the Canadian
>ccTLD registry.
>
>Although I believe that Jonathan is the most qualified candidate for
>election to the Board, there are several other candidates with impressive
>credentials that could make a contribution to the Board. For example, Jamie
>Love has recently became a very active participant within the ICANN process.
>The best word to describe Jamie is passionate. Although I may not always
>agree with Jamie's viewpoints, I respect his unwavering dedication to his
>beliefs. I personally hope that Jamie considers running for the recently
>vacant Names Counsel position within the Non-Commercial Constituency. I
>believe that involvement at the Names Counsel level will provide Jamie with
>some valuable hands on experience with regard to the ICANN process.
>
>Turning my attention to Ron Weikers, I have know Ron for several years and
>use to working with him at a law firm in Philadelphia. Although Ron has a
>solid technical and legal background, he is a relative newcomer to the ICANN
>process. I have reservations about his ability to get up to speed on the
>issues confronting the Board, specifically those involving the ccTLDs.
>
>With regard to the remaining candidates, Peter LeBlanc appears to be a
>popular candidate although I have never had the privilege of meeting him. I
>have a great deal of respect for several of the people that have endorsed
>his candidacy. Peter's strength appears to be in the ccTLD community, which
>as mentioned above is highly important at this point in time. In reading
>Peter's acceptance/position statement, however, it appears that his primary
>focus is advancing the interests of the ccTLD community. I believe that the
>strongest candidate should be the one that has his/her finger on the pulse
>of every constituency.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>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>http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>  
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 19:18:28 -0400
From: Dennis Schaefer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

Wouldn't it be nice to see a budding global bureaucracy say "We goofed"   -- and
go back to the drawing board?  Why can't the Net produce yet another first in
this department?

At the moment, however, the DNSO is little more than an international cartel of
intellectual property owners and their lawyers.  Let individuals in before you
start tearing off people's labels and declaring everyone "equal."

>Dennis Schaefer
Marblehead MA
USA

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 09:39 30/08/00 +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> >To the point of the review comittee deliberations that says:
> >
> >>-  Does the current constituency division minimize the effectiveness
> >>     of the DNSO and NC?
> >
> >Just for the record, I think that the constituency structure of the DNSO is
> >a fundamental reason for the DNSO's problems.
> >
>
> Hear, hear!
>
> --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
> the Cyberspace Association and
> the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> http://www.idno.org
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 20:26:32 -0400
From: Dennis Schaefer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

Jefsy --

Vous avez repondu en anglais si bellement que je ne pourrais jamais vous egaler en

francais.  Cependant, il faut que je constate que  VOUS AVEZ RAISON!

Les noms de domaine sont de souche et de racine la parole, et pas de propriete.
Si la monde des avocats finissent par faire les dn's des propriete, comme un
terrain, nous aurons tous perdus des libertes fondamentales, et le net se sera
converti en le plus grand attaque sur les libertes civiles que le monde n'a jamais

su.

>Denis

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Jamie,
> I thank you for your responses. I certainly renew my support to you
> (right now my PIN does not work - has someone else the same problem?)
>
> >   From a perspective of national law in most developed countries, I
> >think we are past the point where there is a serious effort to assert
> >that domain names have nothing to do with trademarks.
>
> The UDRP 'contract' is a selfcontained document. It defines the words
> and concepts it is about (it could not work otherwise). It does not define
> what a domain name is: IMHO it cannot rule about DNs.
>
> I work in this area for 25 years, I own 4000 DNs, I initiated the X121
> numbering plan of 30 countries, I develop some variations of the DNS,
> I head two comities for new TLDs, and I still do not know what a domain
> name is, technically, gramatically, legally. I am only sure it is not what
> most of the WIPO arbitrators think it is.
>
> BTW, I feel the real problem of the DNSO is not its constituancies,
> but that its constituancies correspond to different interests/cultures
> understanding DNs in different ways.
>
> >> - is the address semantic part for IP or part of free speech? I explain: is
> >> there a difference for you between http://support.france.ibm.com (Saxon
> >> semantic) and http://support.ibm-france.com (Latin semantic)
> >
> >    I don't understand the point you are making here.  However, in my
> >opinion, domain names are speech, and the public has legitimate
> >interests in using domains names for speech.
>
> 1)  you make clear that domain names belong to the freedom of speech.
>      So I have the right to call you any name I want (Jamie, IBM, Koreinthion,
>      ...). But you have not the right to *publish* that you want to be called
>     "MicroSoft" (should you have that strange idea).
>
> 2)  semantic belongs to the international domain names issue as well as
>      characater sets, semantic has an equal importance in string
>      memorization. In Chinese charcaters ars semantic. One of the problem
>      of cybersquatting is the lack of semantic concern (hey register names
>      which share the semantic of a comemrcial concept), UDRP uses
>      rules of semantic not used at registration time. The .SYS WS's
>      ".sys" TLD is based upon a simple semantic: registrants do not
>      register domain names but formats of domain names (not ibm-france.sys,
>      ibm-uk.sys, but ibm-*.sys). Rate structure is totaly different. IP issues
>      too.
>
> 3)  there are several semantics on the net to obtain IP addresses:
>      -  direct IP address   http://123.123.32.21
>      -  domain names http://icann.org
>      -  real names : microsoft
>      -  search engines: yahoo.com then "ford car" which may eventually
>         lead you to the Renault site.
>      -  http://anyhing.anything.wiz by the .WiZ Web Semantic association.
>      In most of them domain names have disapeared and are only kept as
>      CNAMES.
>
> >I wish I knew more about where things are going in terms of IP numbering
> >managment.  I was looking at this page today, trying to appreciate the
> >privacy consequences:
> >http://www.arin.net/announcements/policy_changes.html
>
> True. But FYI the real issue is the necessary IP addressing plan which may
> /will pave the way to Big Brother(s).
>
> >ICANN should let others experiment with different gTLDs.  I think
> >restricted TLDs will be interesting, if ICANN premits easy entry to run
> >a TLD.  At some point ICANN should give some indication of the number of
> >TLDs that the DNS system can support.
>
> 1) I want to introduce two restricted TLDs, managed by beneficiaries, bringing
>     innovation and modifying the IP conception of Domain Names.
>     Consulted, WIPO did not commented yet.
>     I think they would be better introduced as a DNSO level through commercial
>     comities payng K$50.
>
> 2) there is no technical limitation of the number of TLDs.  Would Bill gates
>     want to take the web he only has to righfully modify IE to use the
>     MS-roots and offer millions of TLDs. I do not use the ICANN root on my PC
>     for more than one year.
>
> >I am concerned that ICANN will impose fees on at large voting rights.
>
> I suspected it. Not to really get money but to get dedicated worshipers?
> Always the same old tricks.
>
> Best regards.
> Jefsey
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 20:36:52 -0400
From: Dennis Schaefer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Clarification w/r/t Jonathan Cohen's Involvement inWorking  Group B

Kristy--

Michael Palage has written a nice, politically-correct assessment  of the
candidates.

Let me offer a politically incorrect alternative.

I was one of the original volunteers for Working B.  I was also one of the people
who endorsed Jonathan Cohen for the Board.   I came to regret both these actions.

Michael is a lawyer, and he seems to benefit from a job that permits him to
travel to meetings, and to work intensively on this topic.  I give him total
credit for what he has done.

I also fault him for failing to include individuals who make up the vast majority
of domain name owners, and who do not have his resources.   That blind spot has
made him contribute to the evolution of a Web that is little more than a global
shopping mall.  If he would care to argue publically about the serious defects
that caused me to resign from Working Group B, I would be more than happy to do
so.

If Michael (and Jonathan) could come to realize that free speech trumps commerce
- -- and that democracy is better than autocracy --   both of them would be far
better candidates.

Vote for Jamie Love --  the Net is a human resource for the benefit of all
people.

>Dennis Schaefer

Kristy wrote:

> Do any of these folks have any technical knowledge of the systems?
>
> Could any of these folks build a network and get it online with hardware and
> software only to help them along?
>
> ?
>
> ~k
>
> At 01:22 PM 8/30/2000 , Michael D. Palage wrote:
> >I am writing this email in response to a posting last week regarding
> >Jonathan Cohen's involvement in Working Group B. Let me begin by disclosing
> >that I nominated Jonathan for reelection to the ICANN Board. I believe that
> >I am qualified to describe Jonathan's involvement in Working Group B, as I
> >was the original co-chair with Jonathan. After his election to the ICANN
> >Board, I functioned as sole chair for several months until the Names Counsel
> >appointed Kathy Kleiman and Philip Sheppard as joint Names Counsel Liaisons.
> >
> >Working Group B was created last May at the regional ICANN meeting in
> >Berlin, Germany, along with Working Groups A & C. Jonathan Cohen and Amadeu
> >Abril were appointed co-chairs of Working Group A. Because of some of the
> >criticisms surrounding the procedures in Working Group A, it was decided
> >that the one co-chair would be appointed by the Names Council and the other
> >would be elected by the groups participants. I was elected as the alternate
> >chair by default when no one else expressed an interest. This election took
> >place prior to the ICANN Regional meeting in Santiago, Chile.
> >
> >At this time, Working Group B was still in the formative stage, with no more
> >than twenty initial members. After the Santiago meeting, Jonathan announced
> >his intention to run for a position on the ICANN Board. Following this
> >announcement, Jonathan undertook a less visible role within the Working
> >Group B process, although he continued to offer his insight and expertise
> >leading up to the election.
> >
> >After his election to the ICANN Board for a period of one year, I continued
> >to serve as the sole chair of Working Group B until the appointment of Kathy
> >and Philip by the Names Counsel several months later.
> >
> >Having made this clarification, I would like to offer my insights on some of
> >the candidates running for election to the ICANN Board from the DNSO.
> >
> >The reason that I nominated Jonathan for reelection was because of his
> >diverse skill set and his record to date. Two of the bigger challenges
> >facing the ICANN Board in the near future are overseeing the proof of
> >concept phase for new top-level domains, including any potential issues
> >involving the intellectual property community, and increasing involvement
> >among ccTLD registry operators in the ICANN process. I believe that Jonathan
> >is uniquely qualified to handles these challenges based upon his expertise
> >as an intellectual property attorney and in his involvement in the Canadian
> >ccTLD registry.
> >
> >Although I believe that Jonathan is the most qualified candidate for
> >election to the Board, there are several other candidates with impressive
> >credentials that could make a contribution to the Board. For example, Jamie
> >Love has recently became a very active participant within the ICANN process.
> >The best word to describe Jamie is passionate. Although I may not always
> >agree with Jamie's viewpoints, I respect his unwavering dedication to his
> >beliefs. I personally hope that Jamie considers running for the recently
> >vacant Names Counsel position within the Non-Commercial Constituency. I
> >believe that involvement at the Names Counsel level will provide Jamie with
> >some valuable hands on experience with regard to the ICANN process.
> >
> >Turning my attention to Ron Weikers, I have know Ron for several years and
> >use to working with him at a law firm in Philadelphia. Although Ron has a
> >solid technical and legal background, he is a relative newcomer to the ICANN
> >process. I have reservations about his ability to get up to speed on the
> >issues confronting the Board, specifically those involving the ccTLDs.
> >
> >With regard to the remaining candidates, Peter LeBlanc appears to be a
> >popular candidate although I have never had the privilege of meeting him. I
> >have a great deal of respect for several of the people that have endorsed
> >his candidacy. Peter's strength appears to be in the ccTLD community, which
> >as mentioned above is highly important at this point in time. In reading
> >Peter's acceptance/position statement, however, it appears that his primary
> >focus is advancing the interests of the ccTLD community. I believe that the
> >strongest candidate should be the one that has his/her finger on the pulse
> >of every constituency.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >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>http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:59:22 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

At 12:08 30/08/00 -0700, Liz Bartlett wrote:

>This brings up a point which has worried me for a while - what it
>the nature of the dividing line between members of DNSO, and At-Large
>members? There seem to be a large number of individuals who are
>members of both groups - and no rule in place to stop someone from
>being nominated to stand for the ICANN board in both venues, in the
>hope of doubling their chances of "getting in".
>
Doubling one's chance to "get in" , especially when one isn't "in" at all,
is perfectly legitimate.
What is not legitimate, and currently the case, is the doubling of
*representation* of the same interest, in the guise of or by the domination
of a different constituency.

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

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

Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:18:21 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

At 12:30 30/08/00 -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
>Rick H Wesson wrote:
>
>> > The constituency structure is a failure and should be abandoned.
>> 
>> I agree, however could you suggest a better model, or how we could get
>> the constituency structure replaced and what it should be replaced by?
>
>The only model I know of that demonstrably works for the Internet is
>the IETF model. All working groups have mailing lists. Both those lists
>and the meetings are open to all comers.
>
>Moreover, everyone is expected to "leave their affiliations at the door"
>for working group meetings. The goal is to solve problems for the net,
>based on technical merit, NOT to represent your employer or interest
>group. Of course, it isn't actually that simple but at least the notion
>of leaving affiliations out of it is considered.
>
>This is almost the exact opposite of the constituency approach.
>--

With due respect Sandy, but what may work for engineers facing engineering
problems will not work for political jostling for power and representation,
as the DNSO by definition is.
In politics he who leaves his affiliations "at the door" is at best a
hypocrit and at worst a traitor to those who put him there.
Are the volunteer battlers expected to leave their convictions and
principles at the door too?

Policies that can endure must be the result of good compromises between all
parties affected by them. 
When power and influence are unequal, structures must be created that
neutralize this inequality.
(Not doing so means inviting revolt from below.  And the Internet is not a
Medieval peasant village.)

This needs engineering by those who have no Industry to defend. People who
don't need to leave their affiliation at the door. 
It is the interim Board that has done this engineering as announced in
Singapore.
The result proved that the initial Board did not typically consist of
people who had left their affiliation "at the door".

My problem with the Constituency structure is not so much that it is there,
but that it is

1. Not flexible  (different interest groups will need representation as
their "patch" gets in regulatory focus).  The Paris Draft has merit  on
this point. Parties should be allowed to form naturally.

2. Not honest  (Harald has it spot on--the current double and triple
representation of the same interests is a disgrace)

3. Not balanced (and therefore subjected to constant criticism by those who
are unrepresented)

What especially lacks in the current "constituency" lineup is
representation of the Holders of Domain Names *as such* .  The natural
opposite contract partner of the ISP, Hosting , Registrar and Registry
industry.
The party that needs protection against one-sided contracts dictated by
monopoly power.
(The party that breeds activists as fallout from an unjust URDP or from
rage with NSI--yes, my members' list is still growing.)

BTW, It is not necessarily the natural opponent of an ambitious Trade Mark
owner.
(A clued-up Individual Domain Name Owner has trademarked his own brands).

If the Special Task force is going to execute the will of this GA, it is
going to allow for such an additional constituency.

If this constituency will not be rudely outvoted in the NC, it can help the
DNSO to recommend more balanced DN policies to the ICANN Board.

That will be an improvement.

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 18:39:37 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

Hello Joop,

Wednesday, August 30, 2000, 5:18:21 PM, you wrote:
> In politics he who leaves his affiliations "at the door" is at best a
> hypocrit and at worst a traitor to those who put him there.
> Are the volunteer battlers expected to leave their convictions and
> principles at the door too?

Ah, so now I see how you justify in your mind those of us who
disagreed with your agenda in the IDNO being called "traitors" since
we were supposed to put aside what we thought was best for the
internet and domain holders and just blindly support you, since you
organized us.

Sorry, Joop, but you are wrong, I rather like Sandy's points on this,
and think it would be a VAST improvement over the constituency
structure we have now.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 14:36:04 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Clarification w/r/t Jonathan Cohen's Involvement in  Working Group B

At 17:01 30/08/00 -0700, Kristy wrote:
>Do any of these folks have any technical knowledge of the systems?
>
>Could any of these folks build a network and get it online with hardware and
>software only to help them along?
>

Why do you think such an aptitude test is necessary?

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:31:44 -0300
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Clarification w/r/t Jonathan Cohen's Involvement inWorking Group B and Peter de Blanc

Greetings, fellow GA members.

Again, since my name was called, I feel it necessary to respond.

The ICANN board, IMHO should be composed of a composite of champions from
all constituencies and stakeholders in Internet governance.

Yes, I am sensitive to the issues and needs of ASO, ISP, IP, etc...

And, it is true that most of my work has been in the ccTLD constituency, and
my position statement is that I will represent the ccTLD constituency.

That does not mean I will be insensitive to the needs and positions of the
other constituencies.

But let us face facts. An ICANN board member from, say the IP constituency
will be most familiar with the needs and concerns of the IP constituency. In
fact, that person would be expected to bring forth the position of the IP
constituency.

The ICANN board achieves its sense of balance by having directors that bring
forth the sentiments of the constituencies they have their roots in. Not
only do I see nothing wrong or inappropriate there- I see that as an
essential part of the process.

If elected, I would hope to be able to bring the concerns of my (ccTLD)
constituency
to the Board table, enter into productive discussion and dialog with members
expressing the position of the constituency their roots were in, and
ultimately facilitate consensus and/or comprimise across all constituencies
on policy that will help keep the Internet running and moving forward.

Isn't that what the "Global Internet Community" is all about?

Also, I feel that with my extensive experience in raising money for
non-profit service organizations, I could assist in reducing the burden of
financial support required (recommended/requested) from the constituencies
by ICANN.

regards

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Dennis
Schaefer
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 8:37 PM
To: Kristy
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Clarification w/r/t Jonathan Cohen's Involvement
inWorking Group B

Kristy--

Michael Palage has written a nice, politically-correct assessment  of the
candidates.

Let me offer a politically incorrect alternative.

(snip)...

> >With regard to the remaining candidates, Peter LeBlanc appears to be a
> >popular candidate although I have never had the privilege of meeting him.
I
> >have a great deal of respect for several of the people that have endorsed
> >his candidacy. Peter's strength appears to be in the ccTLD community,
which
> >as mentioned above is highly important at this point in time. In reading
> >Peter's acceptance/position statement, however, it appears that his
primary
> >focus is advancing the interests of the ccTLD community. I believe that
the
> >strongest candidate should be the one that has his/her finger on the
pulse
> >of every constituency.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >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>http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:58:52 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

Joop Teernstra wrote:
> 
> At 12:30 30/08/00 -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
> >Rick H Wesson wrote:
> >
> >> > The constituency structure is a failure and should be abandoned.
> >>
> >> I agree, however could you suggest a better model, or how we could get
> >> the constituency structure replaced and what it should be replaced by?
> >
> >The only model I know of that demonstrably works for the Internet is
> >the IETF model. ...
> >
> >This is almost the exact opposite of the constituency approach.
> >--
> 
> With due respect Sandy, but what may work for engineers facing engineering
> problems will not work for political jostling for power and representation,
> as the DNSO by definition is.

By whose definition?

The problem, as I see it, is to make DNS work well for the network at large.
Of course that means making it reasonably easy to administer, both for the
site DNS admins and for whoever runs the registries, but that is a secondary
concern.

Limiting the power of the registries is a legitimate concern. e.g. see
Auerbach's paper on who owns the whois database:

http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/index.htm

If we can make reasonable accomodations for essentially irrelevant special
interests like trademark lawyers, so much the better. I didn't think that
was necessary; the courts already provide enforcement mechanisms. Another
view won out, so ICANN has defined a dispute resolution mechanism. Good.
Now can we drop all discussion in which "IP" stands for anything other
than "Internet Protocol" and get on with the real work? 

> In politics he who leaves his affiliations "at the door" is at best a
> hypocrit and at worst a traitor to those who put him there.

No, at best he's a statesman.

[snip]

> My problem with the Constituency structure is not so much that it is there,
> but that it is
> 
> 1. Not flexible  (different interest groups will need representation as
> their "patch" gets in regulatory focus).  The Paris Draft has merit  on
> this point. Parties should be allowed to form naturally.
> 
> 2. Not honest  (Harald has it spot on--the current double and triple
> representation of the same interests is a disgrace)

Yes indeed.
 
> 3. Not balanced (and therefore subjected to constant criticism by those who
> are unrepresented)
> 
> What especially lacks in the current "constituency" lineup is
> representation of the Holders of Domain Names *as such* . ..

> If this constituency will not be rudely outvoted in the NC, it can help the
> DNSO to recommend more balanced DN policies to the ICANN Board.
> 
Yes.

Then there are the end users, everyone who uses DNS, many without knowing
it is there. Organisations like EFF or GLIC that work for network civil
rights, and might claim to represent users' interests, have a far better
claim to ICANN representation than "IP" lawyers ever will.
- --
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 #131
************************