Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1320
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, July 9 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1320

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 02:42:26 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's latest

The anti US sentiment expressed by you and other board members only
makes those of us in the US more concerned, and more adamant that our
Government resume its oversight duties in light of ICANN's failures
and shortcomings.

Tuesday, July 09, 2002, 2:32:42 AM, Andy Mueller-Maguhn wrote:

> Gentleman,
> (and women)

> allow me a short comment on this thread. 

> Indeed (and also what Dany pointed out) it would make me more happy
> if Joe Sims as legal consultant for ICANN would see himself and behave
> a little more neutral. 

> This whole discussions raises the "wag-the-dog" question in an obvious
> sad way: is it the ICANN board making decissions based on consultation
> with the community and then asking staff + legal consultant to work it out
> or is it the legal consultant fighting with the community and even a member
> of the board and then consulting the ICANN board what to do?!

> I do not assume that Mr. Sims is "smoking some weird shit" because as a 
> matter of fact, human beeings inhaling marihuana are normaly much more
> peaceful as what at least my impression from this posting is. If this would
> have to do with the abuse of drugs, I would guess some other substance 
> associated with creating paranoia to be (ab)used here [1].

> But I do not mind about private such matters  here and I also do not mind
> if Joe Sims is allowed to practise law in california, but I do  mind if he has
> and keeps the necessary neutrality to be in the position he is for ICANN and
> the board.

> This is what I dislike about the situation.

> So, back to the issues.

> Some of you might have wondered, why the resolution 02.75 - 02.80 [2]
> was adopted unanimously. The reason was mentioned here already, but the
> dimension of it is a little more bizzare.

> As elected director from the european users, and if you want, call it
> "at-large" elected, I of course worry about *how* the user representation
> and participation of users will take place in the ICANN of the future. And
> of course I want to have the attention of the board, especially the members
> of the ERC to *really* think about mechanism, so that the policy-making
> at the end *is* a balance of interests among all segments of the Internet 
> community. 

> Before adopting the resolution, I was able to change some phrases in there
> with the help of other directors, main point was next to the setting of
> the nomcom (originally this was ICANN community, changed to internet
> community) the point:

> *   devise and incorporate specific measures to ensure, to the extent feasible, 
>    geographic and cultural diversity in all parts of ICANN structure

> All parts of ICANN structure means all parts, including staff, legal advise,
> technical structure (including root servers).

> Obviously, this does not solve the problem of public represenation and
> participation within ICANN and the board. And it still raises the question,
> how and with what amount of will this will be practised.

> So there is a long list of open questions, *how* this all will be realised,
> because the precise and direct affecting decisions (by-law changes etc) 
> will be made in the next weeks/months and there is good reasons to keep
> the energy for paying attention to these next steps.

> To come to the point: By all respects to the work of some ICANN critics,
> especially to the US based, I simply cannot follow the idea, that bringing
> the US government into the game (through DOC, through legislation,
> through talking to US Senate members who might be more willing to listen
> than some ICANN board members and staff people are) can improve the
> accountability, transparency and/or user represenation/participation
> situation at ICANN.

> I simply do not know a single example in the past, where by involvement
> of the united states government in global issues, anything improved.
> Especially not for the reasons mentioned. Especially not as a european
> citizen.

> Also, I do not think, that anybody can use "the government as a tool"
> because governments have their own interests next to the sometimes
> existing tiny little bit of reputation some of them might have, through 
> claiming to work on behalf of the citizens (which is of course different
> for the different governments of the different countries and their
> different understandings and procedures to do so). 

> The meeting in Bucharest already took place under specific and more
> or less extreme statements as well from governmental representatives
> as from people involed with the ITU. If you look at the current international
> situation outside ICANN, it is hard to guess in what kind  of issues
> a strong governmental involvemend would bring us in what we can
> see now as the "ICANN policy area" and what might it might end up to be.

> Exactly this is at least my reason for voting in favour of the 
> blueprint as at least a less-worse solution then strong governmental
> involvement would be.

> I hope that this improves your understanding a little bit of what is
> going on here. Sorry for not beeing able to follow all threads here.

> Andy Mueller-Maguhn

> [1] see http://www.rawilson.com/main.shtml

> [2] http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-28jun02.htm

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

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 12:41:43 +0200
From: Andy Mueller-Maguhn <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's latest

At 2:42 Uhr -0700 09.07.2002, William X Walsh wrote:
>The anti US sentiment expressed by you 

anti US? Wait a moment, I have many friends in the US, 
but US citizens and US governments is obviously not the
same. 

Also: please don´t think that I am in favour with any
european governmental involvement more than a 
united states government involvement. 

The USG at least has something called first amendment.

To make it more clear: I´d like to keep ICANN independent
from *any* governmental involvement whatsoever.

regards,
A.

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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 07:08:49 -0400
From: Allan Liska <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Is worldcom cranking up the PR machine?  CNBC article:"The wise OLD man of the Internet"

Hello Jeff,

Tuesday, July 09, 2002, 12:30:19 AM, you wrote:

JW>   Seems that on the same day that SOME of Worldcom's
JW> execs and Ex-Execs are grilled in congress and further
JW> charges being considered by the SEC, that Worldcom's
JW> BOD member Vint Cerf is being held out as a shining star.

As has already been mentioned on this list (by me) Vint Cerf is not
only NOT on the WorldCom board of Directors, he is not an officer of
the company (there is no "O" in his title).  Please do not continue to
spread FUD without proof.

allan
- -- 
Allan Liska
[email-masked]
http://www.allan.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: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 16:49:27 -0700
From: "Denise Michel ALSC" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

Kristy,

Perhaps we had a defunct email address for you, but Kent is stating the
truth. After the At-Large election, at the start of the At-Large Study
Committee's (ALSC's) work, an e-mail was sent to ICANN's 143,789 member
"At-Large election mailing list" inviting people to "opt-in" to the ALSC's
email announcement list by registering for the list via email or the website
(www.atlargestudy.org).  E-mail notices and solicitations for input were
periodically sent to the "ALSC announce list, " which included nearly 6,000
subscribers. Additional e-mails were sent to potentially interested
organizations and individuals, including previous members of the Membership
Advisory Committee and the Membership Implementation Task Force, At-Large
candidates, leaders of ICANN's Supporting Organizations and constituencies,
and managers of relevant research efforts and websites.

When the recent At-Large organizing efforts were launched after the Accra
Board meeting, an email was sent to the ALSC announce list notifiying people
of the efforts and of the creation of a new "information clearinghhouse"
website (www.at-large.org).  All of the names on the ALSC announce list have
been included in the "At-large.org announce list" (unless people sent us an
unsubscribe notice).  If you would like to receive announcements on
At-Large, you can send an email to [email-masked] with the subject
"Subcribe" or you can sign-up via the website.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Denise Michel
[email-masked]

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Kristy McKee" <[email-masked]>
To: "Kent Crispin" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>; "Karl Auerbach"
<[email-masked]>; "Denise Michel ALSC" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; "jefsey" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

> Kent, you have not told the truth and should apologize to the world for
it.
>
> ~k
>
> At 04:29 AM 7/3/2002 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 11:42:41AM -0500, Kristy McKee wrote:
> > > Thomas, Jefsey, the reference to you and yours is a direct reference
to
> > > ICANN, I apologize to those who use English as a second (or third or
> > > fourth) language as they may, like Thomas and Jefsey, not understand
this.
> > >
> > > Please allow me to restate more clearly:
> > >
> > > I'm wondering, Denise,
> > >
> > > WHY:  NONE OF THE AT-LARGE PARTICIPANTS HAVE EVER BEEN NOTIFIED ABOUT
> > > ANYTHING SINCE THE FIRST ELECTION.
> >
> >They were notified.  A mass mailing to all participants in the at-large
> >election was sent, notifying them of the work of the atlarge study, and
> >inviting them to participate.
> >
> > > WHY:  YOU AND YOURS ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE LACK OF FREE TIME MOST
> > > PARTICIPANTS DEAL WITH BY CONTINUING TO CHANGE THE RULES, INVITATIONS,
AND
> > > BY NOT INCLUDING EVERYONE WHO WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO BE INCLUDED.
> >
> >Huh?
> >
> >--
> >Kent Crispin, Technical Systems Manager, ICANN
[email-masked]
> >"Be good, and you will be lonesome."  -- Mark Twain
[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: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 17:10:02 -0700
From: "Denise Michel ALSC" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

Jamie,

The "at-large.org effort" is led by the At-Large Organizing Committee (ALOC)
whose members are selected by At-Large organizations, such as
Icannatlarge.com with which you are involved.  Each organization can, if
they choose, hold elections for their representatives on the ALOC.  The ALOC
has made several decisions since it was created a month and a half ago and
they are reflected on the website (www.at-large.org).

Denise Michel
[email-masked]

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
To: "Kent Crispin" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Kristy McKee" <[email-masked]>; "Thomas Roessler"
<[email-masked]>; "Karl Auerbach" <[email-masked]>; "Denise
Michel ALSC" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "jefsey"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

> Kent, what are the benefits one gets from joining the Esther/Denise
> at-large.org effort?  Can they elect their own leaders or make *any*
> decisions?    Jamie
>
>
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 11:42:41AM -0500, Kristy McKee wrote:
> >
> >>Thomas, Jefsey, the reference to you and yours is a direct reference to
> >>ICANN, I apologize to those who use English as a second (or third or
> >>fourth) language as they may, like Thomas and Jefsey, not understand
this.
> >>
> >>Please allow me to restate more clearly:
> >>
> >>I'm wondering, Denise,
> >>
> >>WHY:  NONE OF THE AT-LARGE PARTICIPANTS HAVE EVER BEEN NOTIFIED ABOUT
> >>ANYTHING SINCE THE FIRST ELECTION.
> >
> >
> > They were notified.  A mass mailing to all participants in the at-large
> > election was sent, notifying them of the work of the atlarge study, and
> > inviting them to participate.
> >
> >
> >>WHY:  YOU AND YOURS ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE LACK OF FREE TIME MOST
> >>PARTICIPANTS DEAL WITH BY CONTINUING TO CHANGE THE RULES, INVITATIONS,
AND
> >>BY NOT INCLUDING EVERYONE WHO WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO BE INCLUDED.
> >
> >
> > Huh?
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ------
> 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: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 13:19:32 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's latest

On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 11:32:42 +0200, you wrote:

>Exactly this is at least my reason for voting in favour of the 
>blueprint as at least a less-worse solution then strong governmental
>involvement would be.

I share your opinions, and I think this - and the difference between your
views and Karl's ones - is a clear example of the major choice we have in
front of us now. The GA has split on this issue, icannatlarge.com has split
on this issue, and we don't have an agreed answer for now.

Personally, I think that leaving ICANN now (or stopping to cooperate in any
form with the Reform process) would be a huge risk. I prefer to be inside
the organization, work to get as much as possible from it, even if it's not
enough, while trying to gain support for our cause outside of it. But I
think it is very unlikely that a direct intervention of the US Goverment
could help our cause and restore the At Large as it was. Possibly, it would
simply start the First Internet World War with the rest of the world's
governments.

I think that everyone of us should think carefully at this question and
choose a position. For what regards icannatlarge.com, it is very likely that
the upcoming elections will determine which way the organization will go -
or perhaps, the fact that the organization is unable to agree on which way
to go and so to proceed. (Sad but true.) 

However, I think that a compromise is possible, if at least we start to
understand and to respect each other. Personally, I was a little
disappointed when being called a traitor by some people, only because I
bothered to fly to Bucharest on my own money and speak with the Reform
Committee. So I think that we should at least agree on the fact that those
who try to get the most from the Reform process, even if it implies
supporting compromises that are not satisfying, are not doing so with bad
intent.
- -- 
.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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 13:33:13 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's latest

- --=======16331620=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3CE779C1; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Andy,
thank you for your input. We certainly share your concern and understand 
your reasons. Explaining your reasons is a good way to correct the 
"unanimity" image which is now gone. I would thank Amadeu to speak up too 
when he thinks appropriate. And all the others, so we clearly know where we 
stand. BoD squatters are also welcome to speak.

In this endeavor each of us has a role and a position. As a Board Member 
your vote and your explanation as a "protect the possibility and wait and 
see" is OK. Up to us now to behave ourselves in order not to endanger your 
contingency plan. But yours is most probably a contingency plan, as I do 
not see the ICANN surviving a long to its current behavior and tricks.

As Europeans we cannot accept the 2 SOs seats, the unique non mirrored, non 
backed-up, non lived tested system of root servers and the unique, 
non-backed-up, non live-tested USG controlled only root single master file, 
nor the NTIA only root system logger archives and analysis, nor the non-UN 
control over international e-embargo. A system in operations 18 years ago. 
I suppose that what is true for Europeans is also true for China, Japan, 
Russia, Africa, Pacific, South America... As French, and as European, we 
cannot accept that e-merchandism (selling what belongs to everyone) comes 
first before e-human rights. We cannot accept that, in a world where the 
electronic environment has taken so much importance to the point that the 
new exclusion is the digital divide, people may be excluded because they 
are not granted their e-presence. A domain name is not a commodity for some 
to sell, it must be a free and permanent right for everyone. To day a 
"real" only being is not filly real.

The true issues the ICANN faces are not the WLS, the politeness of Mr. 
Sims, the sunrise period of .biz or the billions SAIC made in selling 
Verisign stock. The true issues the ICANN was to address and most probably 
failed were to transform the small legacy ARPANET closed system into the 
world open network able to accommodate 6.000.000.000 of users and 
600.000.000.000 of devices in reasonable delays, costs, stability, security 
and peace, without a tremendous negative impact on telecommunications and 
from then on the world's economy. If failed the first Internet shock of the 
e-economy, let have it not produce a second Internet shock.

At this stage, I thank you for holding with reason the fort and trying to 
make it with the "New ICANN", but I think that what they shown us in 
Bucharest is that now, only the ITU can manage the problem. They also 
introduced the GAC in a decision position and this is in my opinion a real 
mistake. The Internet is a value added network, it must be addressed in 
continuity with the other communication and value added networks. Splitting 
its management from other Telecommunication issues would sterilize them 
both, create non necessary conflicts, endanger the fragile Telecom Mamoth 
of which the Internet has become a large and unique customer and an 
integrated partner.

On another hand introducing the Internet into the current ITU would be a 
comparable mistake as the ITU is oriented towards "owned networks" while 
the Internet is owned by no one. So it is up to us to make the ITU-I 
develop with possibly - should ICANN current vision change - having the 
"-I" for ICANN. But an ICANN serving as a secretariat for the users and 
stakeholder consensus. I only hope these few people can adapt their culture 
tothe challenge: never so much depended on so few ... even during the 
Battle of England.

Only a concerted management where everyone retains his authority in his 
business, in his country, in his system can work in a distributed open 
environment. Even cooperation does not work, as ccTLDs show it with no real 
national innovation and development. So coordination under the USG will NOT 
work. No one owns the Internet, not the Govs, not the ICANN, not the ccTLD 
managers, because the Internet only exists because we - the participants - 
plug into each others system the way we want. And first, the way we can 
afford it.

Coordinating the Internet is like trying coordinating Radio, TV, walkie 
talkies, Wi-Fi, speech ... We all know that the target is ultimately to 
control everything down to our brains to sell us e-learning, e-buying, 
e-medicine, etc... and that 2 years ago 60% of the traffic of the web went 
to 110 sites and now to 14. That may be big dream for some marketing 
planners, but thye have to get real: this is wasted money, time and 
efforts. Another Babel will just not work better than the others. People 
are not that fool.

That is (let finish with some humor) ... unless 10 out of that 14 sites are 
Europeans and 6 are French.. :-), just to balance the 13 root servers, of 
which 10 are in the USA and 6 on the East Cost.

jfc

On 11:32 09/07/02, Andy Mueller-Maguhn said:

>Gentleman,
>(and women)
>
>allow me a short comment on this thread.
>
>Indeed (and also what Dany pointed out) it would make me more happy
>if Joe Sims as legal consultant for ICANN would see himself and behave
>a little more neutral.
>
>This whole discussions raises the "wag-the-dog" question in an obvious
>sad way: is it the ICANN board making decissions based on consultation
>with the community and then asking staff + legal consultant to work it out
>or is it the legal consultant fighting with the community and even a member
>of the board and then consulting the ICANN board what to do?!
>
>I do not assume that Mr. Sims is "smoking some weird shit" because as a
>matter of fact, human beeings inhaling marihuana are normaly much more
>peaceful as what at least my impression from this posting is. If this would
>have to do with the abuse of drugs, I would guess some other substance
>associated with creating paranoia to be (ab)used here [1].
>
>But I do not mind about private such matters  here and I also do not mind
>if Joe Sims is allowed to practise law in california, but I do  mind if he has
>and keeps the necessary neutrality to be in the position he is for ICANN and
>the board.
>
>This is what I dislike about the situation.
>
>So, back to the issues.
>
>Some of you might have wondered, why the resolution 02.75 - 02.80 [2]
>was adopted unanimously. The reason was mentioned here already, but the
>dimension of it is a little more bizzare.
>
>As elected director from the european users, and if you want, call it
>"at-large" elected, I of course worry about *how* the user representation
>and participation of users will take place in the ICANN of the future. And
>of course I want to have the attention of the board, especially the members
>of the ERC to *really* think about mechanism, so that the policy-making
>at the end *is* a balance of interests among all segments of the Internet
>community.
>
>Before adopting the resolution, I was able to change some phrases in there
>with the help of other directors, main point was next to the setting of
>the nomcom (originally this was ICANN community, changed to internet
>community) the point:
>
>*   devise and incorporate specific measures to ensure, to the extent 
>feasible,
>    geographic and cultural diversity in all parts of ICANN structure
>
>All parts of ICANN structure means all parts, including staff, legal advise,
>technical structure (including root servers).
>
>Obviously, this does not solve the problem of public represenation and
>participation within ICANN and the board. And it still raises the question,
>how and with what amount of will this will be practised.
>
>So there is a long list of open questions, *how* this all will be realised,
>because the precise and direct affecting decisions (by-law changes etc)
>will be made in the next weeks/months and there is good reasons to keep
>the energy for paying attention to these next steps.
>
>To come to the point: By all respects to the work of some ICANN critics,
>especially to the US based, I simply cannot follow the idea, that bringing
>the US government into the game (through DOC, through legislation,
>through talking to US Senate members who might be more willing to listen
>than some ICANN board members and staff people are) can improve the
>accountability, transparency and/or user represenation/participation
>situation at ICANN.
>
>I simply do not know a single example in the past, where by involvement
>of the united states government in global issues, anything improved.
>Especially not for the reasons mentioned. Especially not as a european
>citizen.
>
>Also, I do not think, that anybody can use "the government as a tool"
>because governments have their own interests next to the sometimes
>existing tiny little bit of reputation some of them might have, through
>claiming to work on behalf of the citizens (which is of course different
>for the different governments of the different countries and their
>different understandings and procedures to do so).
>
>The meeting in Bucharest already took place under specific and more
>or less extreme statements as well from governmental representatives
>as from people involed with the ITU. If you look at the current international
>situation outside ICANN, it is hard to guess in what kind  of issues
>a strong governmental involvemend would bring us in what we can
>see now as the "ICANN policy area" and what might it might end up to be.
>
>Exactly this is at least my reason for voting in favour of the
>blueprint as at least a less-worse solution then strong governmental
>involvement would be.
>
>I hope that this improves your understanding a little bit of what is
>going on here. Sorry for not beeing able to follow all threads here.
>
>
>Andy Mueller-Maguhn
>
>
>
>[1] see http://www.rawilson.com/main.shtml
>
>[2] http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-28jun02.htm
>
>
>--
>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: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 01/07/02

- --=======16331620=======--

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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 07:42:48 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Is worldcom cranking up the PR machine?  CNBC article:"The wise OLD man of the Internet"

According to his CV, he is an officer of WorldCom.
(Long list of cc's was snipped in responding)

VITA
Vinton Gray Cerf
1-8-2002

Educational History

Van Nuys High School, Van Nuys, CA
Graduated: Feb 1961 

B.S. Math, Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 1965
M.S. Computer Science, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 1970
Ph.D. Computer Science, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 1972 

Employment History

November 1999 - Present 

WorldCom Corporation
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147

Senior Vice President for Internet Architecture and Technology
Responsible for design and development of advanced networking and Internet systems 

September 1998 - Nov 1999 

MCI WorldCom Corporation
2100 Reston Parkway, 6th Floor
Reston, VA 20191

Senior Vice President for Internet Architecture and Technology
Responsible for design and development of advanced Internet systems

January 1996 - September 1998

MCI Communications Corporation
2100 Reston Parkway, 6th Floor
Reston, VA 20191

Senior Vice President for Internet Architecture and Engineering.
Responsible for design and engineering of MCI Internet system and services. 

February 1994 - December 1995 

MCI Telecommunications Corporation
2100 Reston Parkway, 6th Floor
Reston, VA 20191

Senior Vice President for Data Architecture. 
Responsible for architectural design of MCI Data and Information Services

October 1982 - May 1986

MCI Digital and Information Services Company
2000 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Vice President of Engineering 
Responsible for the design and implementation of MCI Mail.

Member of the Board of Directors:

2BNatural Inc. (April 2000 - Present)
AfriQ*Access, Inc (Oct 2000 - Present)
AVANEX (December 1999 - Present)
B2B Video Networks (April 2000 - Present)
CoSine Corporation (April 2000 - Present)
Endowment for Excellence in Education (1999 - Present)
Folger Shakespeare Library (September 2000 - Present)
FTP Software (1994 - 1998) - acquired
Gallaudet University (January 1997- Present)
Hynomics, Inc. (September 1998 - Present)
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Sept 1999 - Present) (chairman Nov. 2000 - present)
Internet Policy Institute (November 1999 - 2001) - out of business
Internet Society (January 1992 - June 2001)
Interprophet (1998 - September 2000) - out of business
WorldCom Foundation (January 1999 - Present)
Nuance (December 1999 - Present)

Full text at:
http://www1.worldcom.com/global/resources/cerfs_up/personal_perspective/cerfprofile.xml

Tuesday, July 9, 2002, 6:08:49 AM, Allan Liska <[email-masked]> wrote:
AL> Hello Jeff,

AL> Tuesday, July 09, 2002, 12:30:19 AM, you wrote:

JW>>   Seems that on the same day that SOME of Worldcom's
JW>> execs and Ex-Execs are grilled in congress and further
JW>> charges being considered by the SEC, that Worldcom's
JW>> BOD member Vint Cerf is being held out as a shining star.

AL> As has already been mentioned on this list (by me) Vint Cerf is not
AL> only NOT on the WorldCom board of Directors, he is not an officer of
AL> the company (there is no "O" in his title).  Please do not continue to
AL> spread FUD without proof.

AL> allan

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 08:49:25 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's latest

Andy Mueller-Maguhn wrote:
> Also, I do not think, that anybody can use "the government as a tool"
> because governments have their own interests next to the sometimes
> existing tiny little bit of reputation some of them might have, through 
> claiming to work on behalf of the citizens (which is of course different
> for the different governments of the different countries and their
> different understandings and procedures to do so). 
> 
> The meeting in Bucharest already took place under specific and more
> or less extreme statements as well from governmental representatives
> as from people involed with the ITU. If you look at the current international
> situation outside ICANN, it is hard to guess in what kind  of issues
> a strong governmental involvemend would bring us in what we can
> see now as the "ICANN policy area" and what might it might end up to be.
> 
> Exactly this is at least my reason for voting in favour of the 
> blueprint as at least a less-worse solution then strong governmental
> involvement would be.

     Andy, at what point does ICANN become a "government" for the Internet?

- ------
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: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 09:02:06 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's latest

    Joe, is it now cool to be "anti-democratic" at ICANN?  And if so, does 
it make sense to have so much power centralized in a single organization?

   Jamie

Joe Sims wrote:
> Karl is part of the old ICANN -- an organization that was as much a 
> magnet for every person with grandiose ideas about global democracy as 
> it was a serious working body.  That old ICANN is gone -- and is being 
> replaced with an organization that still adheres to the core values of 
> openness and transparency, of broad public input and participation, and 
> of making policy by consensus whenever possible, but does so with the 
> knowledge that it still has to all work.  For people like Karl, the new 
> ICANN may not have quite the magnetic attraction of the old, but that is 
> not a bad thing.  It should help get the decisions that must be made 
> done in a timely and effective way.  And that will be a good thing.

- ------
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: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 09:09:20 -0400
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GAC on board selection

Joe, what do you make of the comments by France and Germany in the GAC 
comment on the ERC, in paragraph 15, quoted below:

"A minority, including France and Germany, specifically expresses its 
discomfort with the concept of the Nominating Committee. The delegation of 
Germany raised its concerns that, even though the personal properties 
referred to as selection criteria may basically be unobjectionable, 
evaluating individuals by such criteria invariably would be highly 
subjective and, thus, a doubt-raising procedure. The delegation of Germany 
believes that this would be all the more so if the Nominating Committee as 
the selecting body was not sufficiently legitimated. The structure and 
authority presently proposed for the Nominating Committee would more or less 
mean replacing the bottom-up by the top-down principle thereby counteracting 
the objective of securing wider recognition for ICANN."

http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/international/DNS/gac/meetings/mtg13/gac13statement.htm

Board Selection Process

15. The majority of GAC members do not have a strong opinion on the concept 
of a Nominating Committee, believing this to be an issue of ICANN's internal 
corporate governance, nor on the proposition that there be a GAC delegate on 
the Nominating Committee. A minority, including France and Germany, 
specifically expresses its discomfort with the concept of the Nominating 
Committee. The delegation of Germany raised its concerns that, even though 
the personal properties referred to as selection criteria may basically be 
unobjectionable, evaluating individuals by such criteria invariably would be 
highly subjective and, thus, a doubt-raising procedure. The delegation of 
Germany believes that this would be all the more so if the Nominating 
Committee as the selecting body was not sufficiently legitimated. The 
structure and authority presently proposed for the Nominating Committee 
would more or less mean replacing the bottom-up by the top-down principle 
thereby counteracting the objective of securing wider recognition for ICANN. 
The representative of Spain expressed disagreement with the concept of any 
potential GAC delegate being in the Nominating Committee. Malaysia is of the 
view that if there is a GAC delegate, that delegate should not have voting 
powers. The International Treaty Organization members do not offer a view.
- -- 

- ------
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: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 15:11:08 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

- --=======28BE1828=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3CE779C1; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Denise,
very kind of you to copy me. Means you have my mail. So may be could you 
make sure that the form you sent me several times and that the automated 
system on the site should have sent is also mailed to my address?
Thank you for your help.
jfc

At 02:10 09/07/02, Denise Michel ALSC wrote:

>Jamie,
>
>The "at-large.org effort" is led by the At-Large Organizing Committee (ALOC)
>whose members are selected by At-Large organizations, such as
>Icannatlarge.com with which you are involved.  Each organization can, if
>they choose, hold elections for their representatives on the ALOC.  The ALOC
>has made several decisions since it was created a month and a half ago and
>they are reflected on the website (www.at-large.org).
>
>Denise Michel
>[email-masked]
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
>To: "Kent Crispin" <[email-masked]>
>Cc: "Kristy McKee" <[email-masked]>; "Thomas Roessler"
><[email-masked]>; "Karl Auerbach" <[email-masked]>; "Denise
>Michel ALSC" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "jefsey"
><[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 2:46 PM
>Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large
>
>
> > Kent, what are the benefits one gets from joining the Esther/Denise
> > at-large.org effort?  Can they elect their own leaders or make *any*
> > decisions?    Jamie
> >
> >
> > Kent Crispin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 11:42:41AM -0500, Kristy McKee wrote:
> > >
> > >>Thomas, Jefsey, the reference to you and yours is a direct reference to
> > >>ICANN, I apologize to those who use English as a second (or third or
> > >>fourth) language as they may, like Thomas and Jefsey, not understand
>this.
> > >>
> > >>Please allow me to restate more clearly:
> > >>
> > >>I'm wondering, Denise,
> > >>
> > >>WHY:  NONE OF THE AT-LARGE PARTICIPANTS HAVE EVER BEEN NOTIFIED ABOUT
> > >>ANYTHING SINCE THE FIRST ELECTION.
> > >
> > >
> > > They were notified.  A mass mailing to all participants in the at-large
> > > election was sent, notifying them of the work of the atlarge study, and
> > > inviting them to participate.
> > >
> > >
> > >>WHY:  YOU AND YOURS ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE LACK OF FREE TIME MOST
> > >>PARTICIPANTS DEAL WITH BY CONTINUING TO CHANGE THE RULES, INVITATIONS,
>AND
> > >>BY NOT INCLUDING EVERYONE WHO WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO BE INCLUDED.
> > >
> > >
> > > Huh?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ------
> > 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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 01/07/02

- --=======28BE1828=======--

- --
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 #1320
*************************