Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1322
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, July 10 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1322

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 14:06:52 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] Karl's latest

Jeanette and all stakeholders or interested parties,

  Good points here Jeanette.  I agree, as do more and more of
our members that Governments must be directly involved
with ICANN, but they must not fund ICANN IMHO.  The
relationship should be a partnership type of situation, which
presently, even with the USG, ICANN is not.

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> On 9 Jul 2002 at 13:19, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
> > 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,
>
> I don't.
>
> 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.
>
> Major choice? Does a rejection of the Reform Committee's proposal imply a
> leaving of ICANN? Or a support for stronger involvement of governments?
>
> Take the comments from the RIRs as example.  Do they support the blueprint
> proposal? Certainly not. Does that mean they want the US or any other
> government to replace ICANN? Definitely not. The ccTLDs' position is
> another example. I don't think that the existence of worse alternatives is good
> enough as reason to accept and support the blueprint paper. Either one
> shares its assumptions and goals or not.
>
> jeanette
>
>  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
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email-masked]

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 15:11:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's latest

On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 09:02:06AM -0400, James Love wrote:
> >     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?
>
> I'm sorry, Jamie, but that is simply nonsense.  The "power" ICANN has is
> absolutely miniscule.

incorrect.  the power ICANN has is non existent.  any claim to monopoly is
ficticious.  as an informed consumer i know that.  good to see more and
more consumers are getting informed.

joe
www.dot-god.com

- --
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 15:18:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's latest

On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Eric Weisberg wrote:

> > Andy Mueller-Maguhn 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.
>
> Is there a point where governments are better able to represent the interests of citizens than
> private, non-membership organizations?

no.  control of the dns resides with the end user.  impossing government
control on the dns would require monopoly - and icann is a false monopoly
- - so at best any government representation will end up in the gutter.

granted government intervention at this point will prolong it's life - but
in the end it is end users who are in charge when it comes to root.

regards
joe baptista
www.dot-god.com

- --
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 14:18:50 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's latest

Ken and all assembly members,

Ken Stubbs wrote:

> sure... my municipal water district does a great job for me... fresh pure
> water
> now if i could only get more reliable phone service.

  I hear ya!  Perhaps if you switched to a phone service other
than Worldcom/MCI, AT&T, or SBC?  I made the switch
long ago now.  I just luv the great service I have gotten sense
I did.

>
>
> ken stubbs
> p.s. the local mosquito abatement program is also a "rousing success"...
> (more kudos to our local govenrment!!)

  That's great!  Seems though, Joe (mosquito) Sims has escaped
however....  >;)

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Weisberg" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Andy Mueller-Maguhn" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Karl Auerbach" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 13:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's latest
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Andy Mueller-Maguhn 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.
> >
> > Is there a point where governments are better able to represent the
> interests of citizens than
> > private, non-membership organizations?
> >
> > --
> > 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:09:55 -0400
From: Allan Liska <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Is worldcom cranking up the PR machine?  CNBC article:"The wise OLD man of the Internet"

Hello Jeff,

[...snipping unnecessary addresses...]

Tuesday, July 09, 2002, 4:58:40 PM, you wrote:

JW> Don and all assembly members,

JW>   Allan obviously does not do his homework and therefore
JW> does not know what he is talking about in this instance
JW> Thank you for beating me to the punch here Don in posting
JW> this history on Vint.  In any event, all one has to do is
JW> pull the 10k and 10q from the SEC and the recent legal
JW> fraud filings to get the appropriate information for themselves.

JW> So the FUD is from Allan!

Umm...in your original post you claimed:

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 Don's post -- as well as mine -- clearly showed, Vint Cerf is not
on the WorldCom Board of Directors.

The mistake I made was in saying that Vint was not an officer of the
company.  According to Don, and I don't know if what he is saying is
true but I am going trust that it is, a Senior Vice President is
considered to be an officer, but not an executive officer.

Either way, your statement that Vint Cerf was on the BOD of WorldCom
is patently false, and you knew that when you made the statement
because I corrected you last time.

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: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 23:11:25 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's latest

- --=======1EB54A2F=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4B9072A9; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 21:18 09/07/02, Joe Baptista said:
>no.  control of the dns resides with the end user.  impossing government
>control on the dns would require monopoly - and icann is a false monopoly
>- so at best any government representation will end up in the gutter.
>
>granted government intervention at this point will prolong it's life - but
>in the end it is end users who are in charge when it comes to root.

Joe,
what they do not understand is that Govs will not - do not accept the USG 
root. They do not accept its 18 years old non mirrored, non backed-up, non 
lived-tested system architecture, disseminating from an unique military, 
hackers and terrorist targeted non mirrored, non backed-up non live-tested 
computer system what is a small 262 2-to-4 letters strings and 749 numbers 
14.5 K when zipped file, controlled by a single government able to decide 
about any e-embargo against any of them or their allies out of any UN 
decision, obtaining an exclusive information on their live and economy 
through its logger, and making it so complex, for the TLDs it does not 
list, that it de facto impeaches any DNS related social and economical 
development without its agrement. With only 7 poor TLDs added in ... 18 years.

They do not understand that Govs will make the DN a stable, life long, and 
free as the alphanumeric pointers to the online belongings of the 
registrants they are. We will have told them. jfc

- --=======1EB54A2F=======--

- --
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 18:46:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's latest

On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:

> On 21:18 09/07/02, Joe Baptista said:
> >no.  control of the dns resides with the end user.  impossing government
> >control on the dns would require monopoly - and icann is a false monopoly
> >- so at best any government representation will end up in the gutter.
> >
> >granted government intervention at this point will prolong it's life - but
> >in the end it is end users who are in charge when it comes to root.
>
> Joe,
> what they do not understand is that Govs will not - do not accept the USG
> root. They do not accept its 18 years old non mirrored, non backed-up, non
> lived-tested system architecture, disseminating from an unique military,
> hackers and terrorist targeted non mirrored, non backed-up non live-tested
> computer system what is a small 262 2-to-4 letters strings and 749 numbers
> 14.5 K when zipped file, controlled by a single government able to decide
> about any e-embargo against any of them or their allies out of any UN
> decision, obtaining an exclusive information on their live and economy
> through its logger, and making it so complex, for the TLDs it does not
> list, that it de facto impeaches any DNS related social and economical
> development without its agrement. With only 7 poor TLDs added in ... 18 years.

exactlty.  i've been going on about this for a few years.  there should be
multiple roots as control of a root is critical to security.  all we need
is someone recording the names and numbers to avoid collission.

> They do not understand that Govs will make the DN a stable, life long, and
> free as the alphanumeric pointers to the online belongings of the
> registrants they are. We will have told them. jfc

hey it's all entertainment to me - watching the choosen attempt to take
control of something they never controlled in the first place.  I can't
help laughting at people like joe sims.  i really think at one point in
time he was under the impression icann was a global root monopoly.

the worm twists .. as joe sims rocks around the clock tonight.

regards
joe

www.dot-god.com

- --
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 21:36:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Verisign's $200 million commitment for R&D spending

Hello,

I noticed in one of Verisign's agreement with ICANN, there is the
following section:

http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-appw-com-16apr01.htm

In particular "During the period between the Effective Date of this
Agreement and December 31, 2010, Registry Operator agrees to expend a
minimum of US$200,000,000 for research, development, and infrastructure
improvements to the .com, .net, and .org Registries (the
"Improvements")."

Does anyone know how much of this VRSN has already spent? Given today's
stock price carnage, their market cap is close to $1 billion now, so
$200 million represents a significant future outlay relative to their
net worth (when VRSN was at a $30 Billion market cap, it was
insignificant). 

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com
- --
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, 10 Jul 2002 00:29:15 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign's $200 million commitment for R&D spending

George and all assembly members,

  This is fairly old information in the URL you pointed to George.
Most of us that have been around for awhile are well aware
of it.

  As to Verisigns actual outlay, I would suggest that you pull
their 10K from Edgar and take a look for yourself.  So far,
I did not see any outlay of $$ for .com, .net, or .org registry
development.  And $200m really isn't all that significant
amount for a $1b Market Cap company as their ability to
barrow money it about 3 to 5 times that amount...

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I noticed in one of Verisign's agreement with ICANN, there is the
> following section:
>
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-appw-com-16apr01.htm
>
> In particular "During the period between the Effective Date of this
> Agreement and December 31, 2010, Registry Operator agrees to expend a
> minimum of US$200,000,000 for research, development, and infrastructure
> improvements to the .com, .net, and .org Registries (the
> "Improvements")."
>
> Does anyone know how much of this VRSN has already spent? Given today's
> stock price carnage, their market cap is close to $1 billion now, so
> $200 million represents a significant future outlay relative to their
> net worth (when VRSN was at a $30 Billion market cap, it was
> insignificant).
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
> --
> 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: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:34:01 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign's $200 million commitment for R&D spending

- --=======3F197294=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-2DD97EDC; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

My understanding is that the expense is the effort they make on Atlas and 
on the Unicode plug-in and their agreement with MS on that to take the 
Asian market left by the Real Names closing. They then hope to propose 
Atlas to the ccTLDs for multilingual DNs and to jointly offer seach 
services with MS. Then to sweep back Europe with that kind of solution from 
their results in Asia. It is not that stupid, but the implication in 
termsof weak worldwide monopoly are concerning for all as the Internet 
would mainly be either Verisign or alternate systems operators through the 
standalone usage architecture. The only solution I see is to work on a 
viable medium way which seems to gain progressive support (Cambera reprot, 
GAC report ...).
jfc

On 06:36 10/07/02, George Kirikos said:

>Hello,
>
>I noticed in one of Verisign's agreement with ICANN, there is the
>following section:
>
>http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-appw-com-16apr01.htm
>
>In particular "During the period between the Effective Date of this
>Agreement and December 31, 2010, Registry Operator agrees to expend a
>minimum of US$200,000,000 for research, development, and infrastructure
>improvements to the .com, .net, and .org Registries (the
>"Improvements")."
>
>Does anyone know how much of this VRSN has already spent? Given today's
>stock price carnage, their market cap is close to $1 billion now, so
>$200 million represents a significant future outlay relative to their
>net worth (when VRSN was at a $30 Billion market cap, it was
>insignificant).
>
>Sincerely,
>
>George Kirikos
>http://www.kirikos.com/
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
>http://sbc.yahoo.com
>--
>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

- --=======3F197294=======--

- --
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, 10 Jul 2002 12:05:30 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Official gTLD Statement on the Wait List Service

posted to the Council list:

Dear Transfer Task Force/Names Council,

The gTLD Constituency, which represents both the sponsored and unsponsored
gTLD registries, has had the opportunity to review the DNSO Transfer Task
Force's Report on the Wait List Service ("Report") presented to the Board at
the ICANN meeting in Bucharest.  As we have consistently stated within the
Transfer Task Force, the gTLD constituency has several serious concerns with
the report and the process behind producing that Report, which prevent us
from giving it our support.

More specifically, the constituency unanimously believes that the Report
delves into matters that are beyond the scope of any policy task force and
certainly are not appropriate for the policy consensus process.  These
matters include, but are not limited to: (1) whether a Registry Service can
be introduced by a Registry Operator; and (2) the price of a Registry
Service.  We believe that such issues are related to the business of the
individual registry and are more appropriate for the market place to
regulate rather than ICANN.

In light of these, we strongly believe that VeriSign's proposed amendment to
Appendix G be approved by ICANN and that they be allowed to introduce the
Wait List Service.

*We want to note for the record that because of VeriSign's inherent interest
in this issue, VeriSign did not participate in the gTLD Constituency's
discussion of this particular issue.

Thank you for this opportunity to present our comments and we would be happy
to answer any questions that you may have.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Chair, gTLD Registry Constituency
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: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:27:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Official gTLD Statement on the Wait List Service

Hello,

- --- [email-masked] wrote:
> posted to the Council list:
<cut>
> Service.  We believe that such issues are related to the business of
> the
> individual registry and are more appropriate for the market place to
> regulate rather than ICANN.

This might work in a competitive market, but not in a
monopolistic/oligopolistic market place. The "we" in his statement
refers to the monopolists themselves, so should be taken with a grain
of salt, especially as they should know better. Perhaps instead of
spending money on lobbyists and Washington law firms, some of these
firms might sponsor refresher courses in Economics 101 for their
employees, so that they don't present arguments that fool no one.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com
- --
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, 10 Jul 2002 14:00:41 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF

Marilyn,

In your letter to the Transfers TF you write:  "To date, while input was 
received pre-status report, there has been very little feedback from the 
community, constituencies and GA on the status report, or the recommendation 
proposed by Grant Forsyth. This should indicate that the draft has wide 
support within the constituencies/GA".  

Your conclusion is flawed.  Silence does not equate to acquiescence.  Your TF 
has still not produced a final set of recommendations, nor has the public yet 
been invited to comment upon such a final set of recommendations.   To 
conclude that a lack of comments on an incomplete proposal is an indication 
of support is nothing more than wishful thinking.  

The gTLDs have already indicated that they do not support your 
recommendations, as have many that spoke at Bucharest and many that have made 
their comments on the Public Forum list.  By the way, I have seen no 
indication that any members of your TF have ever once looked at the public 
forum comments (if so, you would already have the URLs for the SNAPNAMES 
documentation that you are now requesting).

I share the concerns of the gTLDs regarding "the process behind producing 
that Report", and would encourage your TF to more responsibly attend to your 
obligations.
- --
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, 10 Jul 2002 12:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS & and the Transfers TF

Hello,

- --- [email-masked] wrote:
> Your conclusion is flawed.  Silence does not equate to acquiescence. 

A lot of folks who expressed their opposition to WLS agree with the
Task Force's recommendations. The fact that their views were expressed
in the process leading up to the recommendations, and were reflected in
the report makes it pretty clear that there was no need to comment
further. 

If it will make some people happy, I think I can speak on behalf of all
who are against WLS that we support the Task Force's findings that WLS
should not proceed.

Should the TF have reached any other outcome, given the broad
opposition to the plan since last summer, there'd have been many
comments against the report.

> The gTLDs have already indicated that they do not support your 
> recommendations, as have many that spoke at Bucharest and many that
> have made 
> their comments on the Public Forum list.  By the way, I have seen no 
> indication that any members of your TF have ever once looked at the
> public 
> forum comments (if so, you would already have the URLs for the

I know for a fact that the Public Forum list comments were brought to
the Task Force's attention, as I personally emailed one of the members
of the Task Force to remind them of the link, and got a helpful reply.
The Bucharest "supporters" were mostly Verisign/Snapnames pals, and not
representative of consumers, registrars and other stakeholders, who've
been engaged in the debate for quite some time.

For someone concerned about process, I would have thought you'd be more
concerned about the fact that the public forum was inundated with
"supporters" recruited from Oregon, who essentially cut/paste prepared
"talking points", instead of coming to an independent analysis of the
issues. Some of them even included the closing quotes, e.g. see:

http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?wls;3D18CCCF000000D6
http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?wls;3D18CDFA000000D9

Also, I would have thought that you'd be concerned about the
possibility of preferential access to the Task Force by proponents of
WLS, e.g. see the email at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00333.html

Opponents of WLS should be afforded the equal opportunity to provide
"information" to the Task Force, and provide rebuttals to the spin
provided by Verisign, SnapNames, and their Washington
lawyers/lobbyists.

SnapNames identified about 30 of their competitors on pages 38 and 39
(Appendix D) of:

http://www.snapnames.com/downloads/PartIIMeritsofWLStoICANNBoardofDirectors.pdf

Ignoring their "spin", this indicates that there *is* a competitive
market for expiring names at present. If they were acting out of the
goodness of their hearts, and not self-interest, their proposal should
be that the Registry create a public information center for consumers,
listing all expired names services, to thereby allow the existing
competitive market to evolve faster and more transparently. Perhaps
anyone offering an expired names service could be listed on a page
similar to:

http://www.internic.net/alpha.html

and could be linked to by registrars, at their discretion.

For someone concerned about process, I'd have thought you'd be dismayed
that Chuck Gomes and Verisign have never stated what opponents of WLS
have to do for them to abandon the proposal -- are there any conditions
whatsoever that Verisign would drop the proposal? To Verisign, "no"
doesn't mean "no", and that's a sign of an abusive monopolist.

I understand that Verisign is a company in peril, as investors have
indicated in their recent stock price collapse. If Verisign were to
abandon WLS, in exchange I think opponents of WLS would be in favour of
allowing it to reduce their $200 million commitment for future R&D,
see:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg02770.html

to only $100 million. This would save them more money than WLS would
generate, and wouldn't affect the competitive marketplace like WLS
would.

Horse trading might not be appropriate on a public list like this, but
Verisign should abandon WLS, and focus on cost reduction methods that
their opponents wouldn't care about and would permit.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

P.S. Verisign can contact me off-list if they need advice. I don't come
cheap, though, .... ;)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com
- --
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 16:46:47 +0100
From: Michael Froomkin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's latest

That's interesting.  Are you saying that Karl's claim he was NOT
provided with the Board members disclosure forms is false?   Certainly
the allegation that a member of the Conflicts committee was never given
the data to his job is quite a serious charge.

Similarly, if it fell between the cracks, the request for copies some 6+
weeks ago has allegedly not been answered.  Can you confirm or deny
this?

If these allegations are correct, they would seem to cast some doubt on
ICANN's bona fides -- or its lawyers' ability to do their jobs.

PS.  Recently, you have often said that you work for ICANN at "cost".
Please define this term in the law firm context.  Do you mean "expenses"
(i.e. out of pocket costs)?  "Costs" as defined in the UK (as it would
be set by a taxing master)?  Or some other measure which includes
payment for your time -- which you can set any number you like subject
to what the market will bear.   How does "cost" as you are using it here
compare to the rate that you charge corporate clients?  Or your
discounted rate for clients who are able to negotiate discounts?.

Joe Sims wrote:

>  Karl's latest posting makes you wonder whether the self-imposed
> responsibility for saving the Internet from the barbarians has finally
> gotten to him (and even to his lawyers, if they in fact gave him the
> strange advice he says they did).
>
> What is most revealing, however, in this latest message is his obvious
> contempt for his fellow Board members, who according to him are
> hapless and helpless, in the steely grip of a domineering staff and
> unable (some, according to Karl, because English is not their native
> language) to get the real truth of what is going on.  Karl, by
> comparison, is a self-described big-time player, testifying before
> Congress and meeting with important people in Washington.  His
> comparison in the last hearing to Senators and himself as being
> similar because both were elected was another manifestation of this
> self-delusion, which is both amazing and a little sad.
>
> In fact, if Karl ever actually spent any time with his fellow
> directors from outside the United States, he would discover that most
> of them speak considerably better English than he (or I) do, as if
> that had anything to do with their critical faculties.  Indeed, the
> personal accomplishments of Alejandro Pisanty, or Nii Quaynor, or Ivan
> Campos, or for that matter Vint Cerf and the rest of the ICANN
> directors, compare quite favorably to Karl's career record of
> accomplishment, I would guess.  And if he ever bothered to actually
> debate the merits of issues with them -- which he does not, because,
> of course, he knows he already has the delivered wisdom -- he would
> know how hard they have struggled with these complicated issues.  If
> he ever bothered to listen, he would have heard his fellow elected
> directors explain why, for example, they thought that online elections
> were not a good way to select ICANN Board members at this time -- but
> since Karl knows better, he does not listen or dismisses these views
> as the result of "fear of the US."   But Karl tells us later that
> ICANN is headed for a "collision" with the US because it is failing to
> comply with its obligations (by which he means elections).  Which is
> it:  fear of the US is buffaloing people like Ivan Campos and Nii
> Quaynor into opposing elections even though they really think they are
> a good idea, or the US is going to force ICANN to, in Karl's words,
> "comport with their obligations?"  Like many owners of delivered
> wisdom, Karl is not troubled by internal inconsistency.
>
> I invite readers to review the GAC Statement on Evolution and Reform
> issued at Bucharest.  The US, unlike Karl, was present for an intense
> 2 1/2 day meeting that produced a detailed statement basically
> endorsing the Blueprint for Reform adopted by the Board.  There were
> some dissents or disassociations, like the ITU, but none from the US.
> If we are headed for a collision, where are the signs?  Ah, perhaps
> from his meetings with important people in Washington, but if so, who
> are they and why are they not speaking out?  Could it be we have a
> transparency issue with Karl?  Horrors! Or perhaps he mostly has a
> hearing problem -- zealots frequently hear what they want to hear, and
> only that.
>
> The real issue is not public input into ICANN; there is no dispute
> from anyone that there must be effective mechanisms for the general
> public, including individual users, to make their views known and to
> participate if they choose to in the policy development process.
> Karl's position, and that of some others, is that there is only one
> possible acceptable way for that to happen -- by electing directors.
> The views of many others are different -- that there are numerous ways
> it can happen, and elections (at least today) are not the best of
> those options.  This may be an issue that reasonable people can differ
> on, but to Karl, those who disagree could only do so because they are
> evil, or inept, or somehow constrained in their ability to think
> because English is not their native language.
>
> This is either utter nonsense or the ramblings of a zealot.  In either
> case, it deserves the weight that it is getting.  Karl asked to be a
> member of the ICANN Board; nobody dragooned him.  Once given that
> responsibility, he has chosen to ignore his fiduciary obligations to
> ICANN and to this fellow Board members, and to use that platform to
> feed his ego and advance a largely incoherent personal agenda.  Being
> an ICANN director has given him prominence and attention, and
> apparently that is what he wanted, since he has not even tried to do
> anything iwith his fellow Board members that would possibly advance
> the cause he says he espouses.  He has never missed a Senate or House
> hearing, but he now excuses his lack of attendence at one of the most
> important ICANN Board meetings ever on the fact that it was
> inconvenient for him (as compared, one supposes, to those other Board
> members from around the world that were able to adjust their schedules
> to enable their attendence).  Other excuses for other absences were
> that he was up late and fell asleep, and that he couldn't get the
> phone to work.  In America, every person apparently has the right to
> be irresponsible, but for heaven's sake, the rest of us don't have to
> pretend that it is an attractive character trait.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joe Sims
> Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> Washington, D.C. 20001
> Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
>
> ==============================
> The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> information that may be confidential, be protected by the
> attorney-client or other applicable privileges, or constitute
> non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the
> designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient of this
> message, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then
> delete it from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or
> reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not
> authorized and may be unlawful.
> ==============================
>
>
> -- 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

- --
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                -->   It's hot there.   I'm elsewhere.   <--

- --
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 #1322
*************************