Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1325
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, July 11 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1325

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:39:25 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] At-Large

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.  
>
This is not an accurate statement.  The ALOC is ld by Denise Michel and 
Esther Dyson.  Denise Michel has NOT allowed for any *real* input into 
her efforts, and she has refused to disclose her budget/expenditure 
details (much like ICANN with respect to K. Auerbach's suit).  Now, she 
and E. Dyson want to raise funds for ICANN via the ALOC. 

Furthermore, the overall scope and representativeness of the 
organizations involved in the ALOC is highly questionable.  As far as I 
know, myself and Satyajit Gupta as representatives for icannatlarge.com 
on the ALOC are the only members of the selfsame ALOC who are elected 
represenatives of our organization.  The rest of the "organizations" 
involved in the ALOC lack any evidence of elections for their 
representation (at least as far as I was able to determine).  I invite 
Denise Michel to assert otherwise, as I'm sure she will try.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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, 11 Jul 2002 10:53:16 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS: Dotster posts the definitive arguments against it, and more

On 11 Jul 2002, at 7:42, Rick Wesson wrote:

> 
> 
> I have a question too, where does it say ICANN should work towards the
> stability and security of the DNS?
> 
> IMHO, the WLS can effect the Stability and Security of the Internet and
> because of such the service offering should be examined thourghly. Is the
> WLS is more important, for whatever reason, than the stability and security
> of the internet?
> 
> It is these reasons that the ICANN process should review the desires of
> registries -- to prevent monopolies from doing stupid things to the naming
> infrastructure of a global resource; to prevent greed at the expense of the
> DNS.
> 

I am totally against the WLS, but could you explain how it effects 
security and stabiltiy of the DNS?  We're talking about .COM, not the 
entire internet.

Leah

> best,
> 
> -rick
> 
> 
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> > Tonkin is quoted...
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > Third, if you could please show me where in the gTLD Agreements it
> > says that the policy supporting organizations can prevent Registry
> > Services from being introduced, or where in the Agreements it says
> > that the policy making body of ICANN can determine the price of a
> > service, I would be interested in seeing that.
> 

The clauses that pertain to not restraining compettion, for one thing.  
When a registry sets up a service that will put existing services out of 
business, restrain registrars from offering identical but competitive 
services, etc. it breaks not only the contracts, but the white paper and 
MOUs between ICANN/DoC, Verisign/DoC...
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS: Dotster posts the definitive arguments against it, and more

Hello,

- --- [email-masked] wrote:
> viability of such a service.  Please do not associate the gTLD
> position against the Task Force Report as "support for the WLS." 
> They are two completely separate issues.

Are you saying then that the gTLD position is NOT support for the WLS?
If so, you should amend the statement at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg02773.html

to remove the line "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."
 
> Second,  while there are some good arguments for and against the WLS
> (like the Dotster Statement), consider the statement given by Bruce
> Tonkin at the Public Forum, which I quote below:  See
<cut>
> The comments have been made that by introducing the WLS service will
> somehow reduce competition. That is not true, because when you
> introduce a WLS service, you have exactly the same competitive
> behavior.  First there is the choice as to what's the optimum time to
> place a WLS on a name. Some might choose to place a WLS on the name
> immediately, so there will be competition the instant the service
> stats. There will be competition to register WLS names. Then there
> will be those that will choose to put a WLS on a name when they
> believe it's about to be deleted. Again, there will be different
> business models in how the best way of the optimum time to apply a
> WLS.

Bruce is VERY confused here. Indeed, he hurts the case of proponents of
WLS by the statement above. He is saying that in the Status Quo, the
competition is for the DOMAIN NAME itself. However, by introducing WLS,
that competition is TRUMPED, and replaced by competition for WLS slots.
It's like suggesting that "competition" would still exist if we
outlawed all forms of transportation except rollerskates -- competition
only in the market for rollerskates is INFERIOR to competition for
cars, trucks, rollerskates, skateboards, buses, taxis and other forms
of transportation in an open market.

Many registrars do NOT want to simply become resellers of WLS slots --
they wish to compete for the names themselves, and thus WLS slots
represent an inferior offering to them, and to consumers who wish to
have a choice.

Consider the following scenario. The Status Quo exists, and SnapNames
approaches VGRS to make a private deal, whereby SnapBack holders get
first dibs on all expiring domain names for the first day. SnapNames
then announces that any registrar can resell SnapBacks for $30 ($24+$6
registration fee). SnapNames negotiates a private deal with VGRS to
split the cash.

Do you not think the above scenario would have consumers and registrars
up in arms? I REALLY want someone to answer that question -- yes or no,
would that deal as described above be allowed?

Now, how do you differentiate the above scenario with the WLS proposal?
The *impact* on the marketplace is IDENTICAL, the only thing that has
changed is that VGRS is the one with the "public face" saying they'll
collect the proceeds from participating Registrars.

If anyone can explain to me how they would logically Reject the
scenario above, yet accept WLS, that would put to rest the WLS debate
completely. I issue that as a challenge to Jeff, Chuck, your lawyers,
lobbyists, and any other proponent of WLS -- your silence will be
telling.

> Third, if you could please show me where in the gTLD Agreements it
> says that the policy supporting organizations can prevent Registry
> Services from being introduced, or where in the Agreements it says
> that the policy making body of ICANN can determine the price of a
> service, I would be interested in seeing that.  

I'd be happy to. :) In good faith, proponents of competition and
consumer choice (i.e. opponents of WLS) do not fear answering any
questions, but hope that in good faith you answer a few of ours, such
as the one I posed above. Also, at the bottom of:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg02792.html

I asked for examples of monopolistic WLS-like services for resource
allocation anywhere in the universe, and I'm still waiting for your
answer, or an answer from anyone! Surely SnapNames, VGRS, their
lawyers, lobbyists, or a single proponent of WLS can come up with some
examples to share with us ---- your silence on these points is
deafening.

The places in the ICANN contracts that allow our consideration of the
WLS proposal were previously noted by myself at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg02237.html

I think you'll find that the affected registrars will not hesitate to
enforce ICANN's legal obligations as stated in that message.

There's also the entire issue of anti-trust from the consumer angle
(also from the registrar angle, but they'd represent a separate class).
Given the legal precedents mentioned at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg02373.html

and the treble (triple!) damages faced by defendants, ICANN/VGRS, etc.
should be wary of the risk they face should they be found in
contravention of the law. For a primer on anti-trust, start here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/overview.html

"The antitrust laws apply to virtually all industries and to every
level of business, including manufacturing, transportation,
distribution, and marketing. They prohibit a variety of practices that
restrain trade, such as price-fixing conspiracies, corporate mergers
likely to reduce the competitive vigor of particular markets, and
***predatory acts designed to achieve or maintain monopoly power.***"

"The historic goal of the antitrust laws is to protect economic freedom
and opportunity by promoting competition in the marketplace.
Competition in a free market benefits American consumers through
***lower prices***, better quality and ***greater choice***.
Competition provides businesses the opportunity to compete on price and
quality, in an open market and on a level playing field, unhampered by
anticompetitive restraints"

I could not say it better myself. :) (*** = emphasis added)

Sincerely,

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

P.S. For the DoJ reading this, the relevant post by Dotster, an
innocent market participant who'd be negatively affected by the
imposition of the WLS regime, their original post is here:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00341.html

(see the Word .doc file at the bottom)

__________________________________________________
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: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:12:48 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Names Council teleconference

Just some brief lines about today's teleconference:

- -- There are updated PowerPoint slides from the Transfer
   TF regarding the WLS recommendations available at
   http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00306.html
   Some NC members expressed their dissatisfaction with the 
   TF scope and process. There will be a time period for 
   public comment on these recommendations before the final 
   recommendations are brought before the Names Council. 
   Not all TF members have yed voted on the draft
   recommendations.
- -- The Names Council decided in a vote that the NCDNHC will 
   not lose its Names Council voting rights, although it
   has not fully paid its 2001 contributions.
- -- The vote on whether the ccTLD Constituency's voting
   rights will be extended for 90 days 
   (cf. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00301.html)
   could not be held due to a lack of quorum at the end 
   of the call.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS: Dotster posts the definitive arguments against it, and more

Hello,

- --- "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I am totally against the WLS, but could you explain how it effects 
> security and stabiltiy of the DNS?  We're talking about .COM, not the
> entire internet.

I'm glad you brought that up, about .COM possibly not being the entire
internet. I draw your attention to the statements of Verisign at:

http://www.neustar.com/pressroom/files/announcements/7601-washington_business_jrl.pdf

Verisign stated clearly that "I don't think there will *EVER* be
another .com" (emphasis added) It's that special place in the DNS that
requires that ICANN pay particular attention to the monopolist
Verisign, since by their own admission they are not just another
registry. 

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: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:35:53 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf MP3 recording July 11 2002

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

The MP3 recording of the Names Council teleconference is now available at:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020711.NCteleconf.mp3

Happy listening!

DNSO Secretariat

- --
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, 11 Jul 2002 08:37:44 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

I've been following the debate on the proposed waiting list service for some
time, and while I initially thought it was a good idea, I've come to see
that both side have compelling arguments as to why the service should/should
not be allowed. Aside from the merits of the service itself, this debate is
particularly important, at least in my mind, because it stands to set some
precedent for how future issues of registry services are resolved. With that
point in mind, it seems to me that it would be better for ICANN to look for
some bright-line approach so that resolution of similar issues in the future
doesn't require the same machinations required to reach this point in the
WLS debate.  

I'm particularly concerned that many of the arguments against the WLS focus
on the fact that it is allegedly anticompetitive. It strikes me that ICANN,
with its limited staff resources and its necessary reliance on volunteer
policy contributions from the stakeholder community, ought not be placed in
the position of deciding what is or is not "anticompetitive." Surely even
those registrars who most oppose the WLS appreciate the danger in creating
an ICANN that becomes a market regulator.

Here's where I'm going with all this. If the WLS is anticompetitive, why is
it not preferable to have ICANN take no position on the WLS? Verisign is
free to implement the WLS, but if the service is anticompetitive, Verisign
runs the substantial risk that the registrars will file a lawsuit. That
would leave the anti-competition issue to a more appropriate forum -- a
court -- where experts, economists and others could weigh in on the effects
of the service. When I say ICANN should remain neutral, I mean just that. It
should be careful to ensure that Verisign cannot argue later that ICANN
either required or blessed the WLS. (And we should ensure that the registrar
accreditation contracts don't require the registrars to waive any private
law remedies they may have for a registry's anticompetitive acts.)

This strikes me as a better approach for ICANN as a whole, but I wanted to
float it here so people could help me think it through. I don't have time
today to do a lot of follows up, but I'll look forward to reading any
responses this evening.

    -- Bret

- --
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, 11 Jul 2002 17:54:19 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC Bucharest meeting minutes, June 26, 2002

[To:[email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]]

[ http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.NCbucharest-minutes.html ]

ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Names Council Bucharest, Romania Meeting on 26 June 2002 - minutes
27 June 2002.

Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.NCbucharest-agenda.html

List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc         ccTLD  *proxy given to Elisabeth Porteneuve
Elisabeth Porteneuve   ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay     ccTLD
Philip Sheppard        Business
Marilyn Cade           Business
Grant Forsyth          Business
Greg Ruth              ISPCP
Antonio Harris         ISPCP
Tony Holmes            ISPCP
Philipp Grabensee      Registrars
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars
Roger Cochetti         gTLD
Richard Tindal         gTLD
Cary Karp              gTLD
Ellen Shankman         IP
Laurence Djolakian     IP absent, apologies
J. Scott Evans         IP
Chun Eung Hwi          NCDNH
Harold Feld            NCDNH
Erick Iriate           NCDNH absent, apologies

Glen de Saint Géry     NC Secretary

Recording of the meeting:
http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ICANN/icann_bucharest.html#archived

Quorum present at 14:00 (all times reported are local time in Bucharest).
Philip Sheppard chaired this NC meeting.

Approval of the Agenda

The agenda was approved with the addition of :
Two Budget committee resolutions proposed by Roger Cochetti for acceptance
by the Names Council.

Resolution 1

Motion proposed by Roger Cochetti, seconded by Ken Stubbs.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/Owed-to-ICANN.xls
An invoice received from ICANN management for Wcom teleconference expenses
for $8567.12 covering the period December 2001 to April 2002.

Motion carried unanimously.

Resolution 2

Motion proposed by Harold Feld to the Budget committee seconded by Roger
Cochetti:

The Budget Committee recommends to the Names Council that the Non-Commercial
Domain Name Holder Constituency has shown adequate cause why it has not paid
the balance due on its 2001 invoice. Accordingly, the Budget Committee
recommends that the Names Council waive the sanctions that would result from
failure to pay the balance due on the 2001 invoice.
I would like to make clear that this motion only addresses the issue of
sanctions. It does not address the question of whether the Names Council
should forgive the remaining amount due on the 2001 invoice.
Motion deferred to the next meeting

Agenda Item 2: Status report from WHOIS Task Force

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.NCbucharest-WhoisTF-final.ppt

Tony Harris introduced the report stating the Mission of Task Force:
"Consult with community with regard to establishing whether a review of
ICANN's WHOIS policy is due and, if so, how best to address "
Among the activities : Extensive TF discussions plus a non statistical
Survey to which 3035 responses were received.
Purpose of Survey was to seek to understand how WHOIS is used; who uses,
what perspectives are:
Initial Consultation : June - August - 9 weeks Initial Report of Responses,
Characteristics of Respondents: Santiago, Chile, Paul Kane, Chair Task Force
Expanded, new co-chairs - end of year, '01
Statistical assessment, Analysis of Statistically selected "300" for Interim
Update in Ghana, March, '02 Undertook Further Narrative Analysis plus review
of Question 20.
Analysis of Narrative responses have been very challenging in terms of time
and complexity.
Draft Report is being posted - with four week comment period Present draft
final report at Bucharest meeting; final report in July after further
discussion regarding findings and recommendations.
Present to NC for forwarding to the ICANN Board - July, '02

Marilyn Cade, who kindly made a telephone connection possible, introduced
Thomas Roessler on line.

Thomas Roessler : GA Chair reported on point 4 "statistical considerations"
and point 5 "What people told us" mentioning that for the latter, two thirds
of the responses had been looked at.

Steve Metalitz: Intellectual Property constituency (IPC) presented an
overview of Key survey findings, grouping the findings with a set of
categories Accuracy Uniformity and Consistency Searchability Resale,
Marketing and Bulk Access, the 4 areas of focus for the recommendations.
With regard to question 7, Accuracy, there was widespread concern across
categories of users.   Suggested cures (examples):  Facilitate registrant
updates, Require validation/re-validation, Cancellation/suspension remedies.

Rom Mohan: gTLD constituency reported on questions 11 - 15 Uniformity and
Consistency. In general this was supported across all the gTLDs as well as
the ccTLDs.

Steve Metalitz: IPC commented on Searchability saying there was strong
support in all categories to search on elements other than domain name
(WHOIS search restoration), mixed support for enhanced searchability and
defraying cost of enhancement could be met through a registration fee
Absorbed by registrar/registry WHOIS searchers.

Karen Elizaga: Registrars constituency, reported on questions 17 D, 18 & 19,
and said concerns were expressed re marketing uses/bulk access and there was
a mixed review for third-party services.

Marilyn Cade said that Question 20 offered a unique opportunity to the
respondents to share "other thoughts". The Task Force read over one-half of
all responses and identified "gems". Gems are incorporated section by
section to illustrate unique concerns or views. They are not in any way
statistically valid, but they are interesting, often informative, and
sometimes even amusing.
In conclusion she commented on marketing use of WHOIS data; Bulk Access
Provisions and issues that need to be explored further: Privacy issues in
general, differentiated access to WHOIS database for different elements?
What are additional considerations related to ccTLD WHOIS access and
availability? Costs to make any changes, improved notice efforts by
Registrars/Intermediaries, updates by registrants themselves for "aged"
data, validation/revalidation, "centralized portal access" and which changes
require consensus policy?

Harold Feld commended the Task Force for their excellent work but expressed
concern that the solutions may be more sophisticated than the raw data
shows.

Chun Eung Hwi remarked that environment and data format were being
distinguished in the privacy issue with regard to the ccTLDs, which in many
situations would lead to a suspect solution as self- identification elements
depend on national laws and according to each environmental context the
information could be different.

An e-mail dialogue on this issue should be encouraged.

Agenda Item 3: Transfers and Deletes

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020604.NCTransferTF-report.html

Marilyn Cade said that a status report from the Transfers Task Force had
been sent to the Board by the Names Council on June 10, 2002 and has been
posted on the ICANN website for public comment.

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.NCbucharest-TransferTF-final.ppt

In a power point presentation to the meeting Marilyn Cade mentioned the
complex issues such as definition of apparent authority and the role of
"author-info" within the process and the delay in the work due to the
Evolution and Reform process and new work required on Wait Listing Service.
The revised plan will entail:
Revisiting the survey concept
Work with At large or other resources
Finalise the draft Apparent Authority with comments received
Add Express Authorisation and its linkage
Determine whether examples of Expressed Authority are useful.

Timeline to be revised for Transfers, while work continues to determine what
the situation is with deletions and incorporate related issues and assess
what has to happen in addition re deletions.
The goal being to finish work on Transfers and to establish timeline on
further deletions work.

Questioned on timelines, constituency responsibility is important.

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.NCbucharest-VRSN-proposed-WLS.ppt

Grant Forsyth introduced the subject saying that within "Deletions,
Solutions and WLS" the Task Force concentrated on WLS due to a call by
Verisign for a quick response.
The issues concerned: competition/Registrant, Registry, Registrar and
Registrant concerns.
Individuals, businesses, governmental agencies and non commercial users are
all losing domain names due to mistake or error.
Concerns included that the cost of service might continue to rise, lacking
pressure of competition - clearly the currently suggested price is not cost
based (the usual basis for pricing a monopoly service)
Competition should always be viewed as to the effect on the eventual
consumer - this is the framework of consideration the TF has taken.
The existing competing "lapsed-name" services will be eliminated by the WLS
service.
Monopoly services are usually price regulated on a "cost-plus" basis - this
introduces regulatory burden.
Participants in the calls have suggested that WLS should not be viewed as a
solution to remaining technical issues/concerns.
Verisign and Snapnames presented information that the present registrar
level competitive services are "exclusionary" and that they are not "widely
available" to any interested individual registrant or are cost prohibitive
for a single name registration.
Counter arguments were presented by others in the community based on the
harm to the existing competitive services.
Technical aspects of the present approach in deletions of domain names:
Extensive discussions have taken place over several months. Versign said
that they addressed the issue, while the Registrars have identified further
technical processes.
The following policy recommendations are to be concluded by the Task Force
and then put to the next Names Council meeting for adoption and forwarding
to the ICANN Board. To reject the Verisign agreement amendment and 12 month
trial.
Should the ICANN Board not accept the policy recommendations it would
recommend that: The introduction of the WLS be dependent on the
implementation and proven (for not less than 3 months) practice envisaged in
the proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice
and the establishment of a standard deletion period.
The price for the WLS be set at the same amount as the current registry fee
for a registration.
The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the registry
(through the registrar) to the existing registrant of a domain name when a
WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name. and that it
be fully transparent.

In response to questions from Roger Cochetti and Ken Stubbs as to the
language of the report and the recommendations that would go to the Board,
it was stated that Deletions, Solutions and WLS had been handled only by the
Task Force, recommendations had not yet gone to the Board.
Concern was expressed about implementing the Grace Redemption Period, (GRP)
as soon as possible, to which Grant Forsyth replied that a request was put
to the Names Council to give input to the GRP and if the WLS goes forward it
should be dependent on the GRP.
Concern about price was expressed by J. Scott Evans and Ellen Shankman.
Price recommendation was a function of monopoly supply.

Agenda Item 4: ICANN Evolution and Reform

Philip Sheppard asked for comments round the table.

Elisabeth Porteneuve, ccTLD constituency: reported on the formation of the
cc Supporting Organisation (SO), preference given to the name which reflects
historical and cultural internet language. On funding, the ccTLDs remain
committed to funding ICANN. When the cc SO is approved, funding will be in
relation to domain names registered. Each ccTLD develops policy at its own
country level and is paid for it. The constituency is against the nominating
committee, but in favour of an international council. Close cooperation with
the GAC is sought and a single representative is not enough. The first GAC
ccTLD workshop took place at the Bucharest meeting.

Ken Stubbs, Registrar Constituency: reported that the ICANN Registrar
Constituency has provided unwavering support of ICANN reform and its efforts
to foster and maintain competition in the domain name marketplace. The most
recent support can be seen by the pending approval of the 2002-2003 budget
which currently contains a 30% increase in registrar contributions from last
year, specifically an increase from 8 per domain name year to 11 cents. The
registrars believe the blueprint for reform is an additional step in the
right direction to ensure that ICANN is provided the necessary funding and
staff to ensure its stable operations.
The registrars also support the concept of a Nominating Committee to better
represent the global Internet stakeholders. The registrars also believe that
ICANN has taken constructive steps to streamline and resolve complex policy
issues through a process that relies upon increased outreach and
documentation. However, Registrars would like some additional clarification
about the proposed .25 per domain name fee referenced in the blueprint
document which represents an almost 300% increase from the current .08 per
domain name. Specifically, is the proposed fee to be borne solely by ICANN
accredited registrars in connection with gTLD registrations, and will there
be an grand fathering provision prior to the implementation of this new
licensing fee.
One point that the committee for evolution and reform must address is the
special contractual relationship that registrars and registries have with
ICANN and the need for a mechanism to resolve/clarify existing contractual
rights, outside of the current policy framework which all issues
nevertheless seem to pass through. It is the registrars' perception that the
organization should grant a higher status to contracting parties than it now
does, and, under the authority of the ICANN Board of Directors, devise a
means for adjudicating contract interpretations and enforcement. Much
thinking needs to be done about how this adjudication can be carried out,
and some of our members will have contributions to make in that regard.
Nevertheless, rapid, impartial, and effective contract interpretation and
enforcement is a vital interest of all contracting parties, and it is in
this regard that the current proposals are weakest.

Harold Feld, Non Commercial constituency NCDNHC: remarked that the
non-commercial presence in ICANN is shrinking, not because of lack of
interest but because many of the Foundations responsible for funding, no
longer do so. He urged that attention be given to e-mail participation to
make the constituency voice heard. The constituency is not satisfied with
the evolution and reform and feel that not all input is considered. The
Board should be reminded of the critical ICANN principles:
- -Accountability to the internet community,
- - Top down process alienates the community, while a bottom up process is
critical to the legitimacy of ICANN and is broadly supported
- -ICANN deals with internet stability.
The constituency expressed concern at the elimination of the At Large, and
if the General Assembly were to become a cross-constituency platform, there
would be no formal role for individual opinions. Individual domain name
users are charged 25 cents per domain name but are denied representation
promised in 1988 and reaffirmed in Cairo.
- - While Government involvement is invited, individuals are being pushed out.

The non-commercial constituency is composed of diverse elements and these
should not be confused with individual interests.

Cary Karp, gTLD constituency: said that the Evolution and Reform committee
had made significant steps in the direction it intended to move in. Two
points should be discussed
- - means by which constituencies with contractual relationships relate to
ICANN,
- - Registrars and registries can more easily be aggregated.

Roger Cochetti, gTLD constituency: expressed concern about oversight and the
absence of an independent ongoing review body. The approach is inadequate
and should be addressed before the constituency can support the blue print.

Jordyn Buchanan, gTLD constituency: said that constituencies should be
divided according to voices heard beyond the gTLD policy. In support of
separation of Supporting Organisations.

Ellen Shankman, IPC: was encouraged by the blue print and supported the
GNSO.
J.Scott Evans, IPC only 8 members perused the document so it difficult to
give an opinion for the constituency however they were encouraged by:
- - the Board considerations and the committee's outreach effort.
- - the GNSO
- - the evolutionary approach rather than a revolutionary approach.
Cost was a concern. Trademark owners use domain names extensively and are
willing to support ICANN financially.

Tony Holmes, ISPCPC: although his report would only be presented the next
day, said he was pleased to see a step back from the initial radical
approach. The constituency favoured a different board composition with no
non-voting liaisons. They opposed to the length of office for board members
and do not want nominating appointees on SO councils. They approved one
non-voting member from GAC. They approved the considerable progress made by
the At Large and felt that the 4 unaffiliated people on the nominating
committee should come from the At Large. He went on to say that one of the
main problems with ICANN was lack of staff support. Staff support was
essential. The August 31 date should be extended as it is not viable.

Marilyn Cade, Business constituency: reported that there had been extensive
consultation, while the late delivery of the report has made it difficult to
comment on. The Board member's interest during the meetings has been greatly
valued.
Funding is the highest priority: Business users represent a significant part
of the internet community. Registrants fees are important. The BC is on
record: 2/3 of the funding from gTLDs, 1/3 from RIRs and ccTLDs
contributions.
Mission: There is support for the language of policy development in the
paper , but opposition to the outsourcing of ICANN functions. Concern was
expressed about the nominating committee and while there is support for it
to select board members, there is no support for it to select supporting
organisation councils. Strong support was expressed for a separate cc
Supporting Organisation while mutual ongoing dialogue between ccTLDs and
gTLDs was expected to take place. Consistent with the ISCPC thinking, the 4
unaffiliated board members should come from the At Large. No justification
could be found for changing the number of representatives from 3 to 2. It
was emphasised that board authority should be policy approval and not policy
development.
Government participation is a relatively new field for ICANN and the GAC. A
methodology should be formed to consult with the GAC and bring issues to it,
rather than appoint liaisons. Internet stability is a key issue and private
sector leadership can and has proved to be successful.

In a cross constituency debate mechanisms for dealing with contractual
issues were considered a key issue.

AOB: dot ORG.

Harold Feld introduced the subject saying that a number of bidders made
representations to the NCDNHC but was concerned that the non-commercials
should be more involved in the evaluation as they could contribute a certain
expertise.
He requested the Names Council to ask the board:
- - to instruct staff to work closely with a non-commercial team and
volunteers from other constituencies.
- - that a part of the funds paid by the application be allotted to the NCDNHC
to enable them to produce input to the Board.
- - that the dot ORG decision be made during an open board teleconference,
listen only ports available. The board should record the meeting so there is
a concrete report available. A stable and final decision is important to
legitimise the process.

In concluding the meeting, Philip Sheppard said that he would remind the
Board of the constituency interest in the dot ORG process.

17. 00 the meeting ended.

The next Names Council teleconference will be held on Thursday, June 11,
2002 at 15:00 Paris time, 13:00 UTC.
Further information: http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html

                 Information from:© DNSO Names Council

- --
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, 11 Jul 2002 10:49:02 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS: Dotster posts the definitive arguments against it, and more

You dont understand, George. ICANN is controlled by the likes
of VSGN - ICANN will do *their* bidding, not what is right for
the rest of the internet.

John
- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:21 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS: Dotster posts the definitive arguments against it, and more

> Hello,
> 
> --- "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > I am totally against the WLS, but could you explain how it effects 
> > security and stabiltiy of the DNS?  We're talking about .COM, not the
> > entire internet.
> 
> I'm glad you brought that up, about .COM possibly not being the entire
> internet. I draw your attention to the statements of Verisign at:
> 
> http://www.neustar.com/pressroom/files/announcements/7601-washington_business_jrl.pdf
> 
> Verisign stated clearly that "I don't think there will *EVER* be
> another .com" (emphasis added) It's that special place in the DNS that
> requires that ICANN pay particular attention to the monopolist
> Verisign, since by their own admission they are not just another
> registry. 
> 
> 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
> 
> 

- --
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, 11 Jul 2002 18:01:59 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf minutes June 17 2002

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020617.NCteleconf-minutes.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

        DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 17 June 2002 - minutes
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 June 2002.

Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020617.NCteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:

Peter de Blanc         ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Oscar Robles/
Elisabeth Porteneuve
Elisabeth Porteneuve   ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay     ccTLD absent
Philip Sheppard        Business
Marilyn Cade           Business
Grant Forsyth          Business absent, apologies, proxy to Marilyn Cade,
Philip Sheppard
Greg Ruth              ISPCP
Antonio Harris         ISPCP absent
Tony Holmes            ISPCP
Philipp Grabensee      Registrars absent,
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars absent, apologies, proxy to Ken Stubbs, P.
Grabensee
Roger Cochetti         gTLD
Jordyn Buchanan        gTLD  absent,
Cary Karp              gTLD
Ellen Shankman         IP
Laurence Djolakian     IP absent, apologies, proxy to Ellen Shankman
J. Scott Evans         IP
Harold Feld            NCDNH
Chun Eung Hwi          NCDNH absent,
Erick Iriate           NCDNH absent,
Ron Sherwood           Observer, represented Peter de Blanc in his absence

11 Names Council Members

Alejandro Pisanty      Chair ICANN Evolution Committee
Hans Kraaijenbrink     ICANN Evolution Committee
Lyman Chapin           ICANN Evolution Committee

Thomas Roessler        GA Chair
Alexander Svensson     GA Alternate Chair

Glen de Saint Géry     NC Secretary
Alix Guillard          MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat

MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020617.NCteleconf.mp3

Quorum present at 15:10 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during
summer time in the northern hemisphere).

Philip Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference.

Approval of the Agenda
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020617.NCteleconf-agenda.html
The agenda was approved.

Item 1. Summary of last meeting:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020606.NCteleconf-minutes.html

Ellen Shankman moved the adoption of the summaries,
The motion was carried. There was one abstention: Cary Karp

Decision 1: Motion adopted.

Item 2. Discussion and adoption of NC reply to the Evolution committee
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/200206.NCreply-evolution-com.html

Philip Sheppard suggested walking through the Names Council reply to the
Committee on ICANN evolution and reform - Recommendations for the Evolution
and Reform of ICANN June 2002 v2. He addressed the paper stating that there
had been an extensive debate since March 2002 and the substantial
recommendations within were based on the recommendations (v12) already
adopted following extensive consultation with the Names Council and General
Assembly.

Introduction: This includes a statement (suggested on the previous call by
Ken Stubbs) that underlying all of them are recommendations on funding and
staff support. Accepted by all

1. Scope and Mission

Accepted by all.

II Board Composition

For clarity, NC recommendation 30 (policy development bodies should elect
board seats) will be added to this section. Marilyn Cade suggested the
addition of "national" in Q1:
d) government. The GAC cannot be treated in this way. "National" governments
speak for themselves.
In addition she raised the point about accountability and made it clear that
advisory bodies should not vote but have a purely advisory function.

New wording: Q 2 a) accountability
Advisory Body appointees also may lack accountability, especially if the
Board has responsibility for appointments to the advisory body.

Harold Feld pointed out that the original purpose of ICANN was to prevent it
falling under Government purview and incorporating a Government seat on the
board is moving in the wrong way. He also requested that the Non-commercials
be added footnote 4 as not supporting a nominating committee.

Accepted by all.

III. Board Selection Process

Accepted by all

IV Nominating committee composition and responsibility

Philip Sheppard addressed this saying that he based the proposed wording on
the Registrars proposal discussed at the previous meeting. Tony Holmes
expressed concern that the three groups would not be understood by all the
audience.
Ron Sherwood asked for clarification on the two groups, users and at-large
while Elisabeth Portneuve suggested that public interest should be
clarified.
It was decided to define these by amalgamating paragraphs 1 and 2.

Accepted by all.

V Policy Development Structure

Q. 9 Technical Advisory Committee
Marilyn Cade raised the point that with the Protocol Supporting Organisation
coming to an end, how would the technical community elect board seats in
their models?

Accepted by all

VI Policy development process
Philip Sheppard stressed the importance of the Names Council endorsing a
bottom up process.
Harold Feld endorsed the GA footnotes 8 and 9 and added that General
Assembly has always been a place for participation and not cross
constituency discussion.

Management by the board of process in recommendation 9 was questioned by
Marilyn Cade. She felt this could be misinterpreted. Ellen Shankman
expressed concern about the meaning of bottom-up process.
It was agreed to add a footnote to recommendation 9 clarifying that by
managed the NC envisages an oversight role of the process, not policy
management.

Accepted by all

VII Public Oversight and Participation

Philip Sheppard read the two sentences added after the last meeting
concerning the ombudsman's office which should have the right to invoke
arbitration for alleged by-law violations based on the rationale that
external arbitration imposes costs to those invoking the process and
although costs could deter frivolous arbitration they might hinder
legitimate requests.

Harold Feld suggested that a note be added that it does not foreclose the
right of the individual to proceed at their own expense. If a right is not
explicitly preserved it will be read out.

Accepted by all as amended.

VIII Funding
J. Scott agreed with the recommendations but believed that no one has said
where the money is coming from. The Chair pointed out that this was
reasonably clear from recommendation 5 on core funding (gTLD registrant
fees).  Accepted by all.

IX Government
Accepted by all.

X Outside resources
Accepted by all.

XI Internal ICANN structure
Accepted by all.

Discussion with members of the ICANN evolution committee
At this time 16:10 (Paris) Philip Sheppard welcomed Alejandro Pisanty, Hans
Kraaijenbrink and Lyman Chapin from the evolution committee who joined the
Names Council teleconference. Philip Sheppard summarised by saying that the
Names Council drafted a paper in response to the evolution committee and
that key differences were:
1. The policy development entities should elect their own chairs and board
members. They should be more self determining than the committee has
proposed.
2. The Advisory committees should be advisory. They should not provide board
members.
3. There may be a role for a nominating committee, but only to select half
or less of the Board. They should have no role in relation to policy
development or other bodies.

Board selection
On point 1, Alejandro Pisanty said that many comments had been received that
pointed to an opening for more self determining policy development bodies.
He mentioned that he was personally pushing for a more self determining
role.

Hans Kraaijenbrink commented that he was interested in the Names Council
arguments for the policy development bodies to elect Directors. He viewed it
as a power issue. Whereas the community views the board as a team in a way
that people are delegated from certain communities with the intention to
work in a team and to include the supporting organisations and advisory
councils in a liaison capacity, whether voting or non voting. Philip
Sheppard asked why a nominating committee would be likely to choose a better
person or team player than if the DNSO or supporting organisation elected
someone. Hans Kraaijenbrink answered that working through a nominating
committee there could be a balance achieved in the different aspects needed
whereas the other resembled a parliamentary model with appointments from
different sections. He added that it was more a philosophical than practical
question.

Marilyn Cade responded to the issue saying ICANN had done well. The outcome
identified should be shared goal, but a policy organisation could select
their board members on a set of criteria that will support the defined
outcome.

Alejandro Pisanty emphasised that there should be a balance of different
personalities and outlooks and that the board must be more widely
representative.

Marilyn Cade and Ph. Sheppard clarified that the Names Council looks at two
ways in making up the board: half the board seats would be elected by the
Policy developing entities and half by the nominating committee process

Alejandro Pisanty said that there are a lot of views on who will be on the
nominating committee. The gTLD Registrars and gTLD Registries want an
appointment, while many feel it should be open and without politics, serving
the common good of all. He also felt that At-large was perhaps not the best
term when the objective was stewardship of public interest.

Harold Feld expressed two concerns about the nominating committee
- - its ability to return good board members through undefined criteria
- - the results of the selection being regarded as legitimate by the broader
community.
Alejandro Pisanty shared these concerns and said that the committee was
striving to balance 2 sources of legitimacy:
- - having channels open and listening to people
- - legitimacy in achievement.
The At-Large effort was well intended and a huge effort was put into it, but
it was not working well enough to provide legitimacy in representation.

Ph. Sheppard asked whether it could be envisaged that the wide role of the
nominating committee could be reduced to which Alejandro Pisanty replied
that the committee was moving in that direction.

Funding
Philip Sheppard introduced the item of funding saying the it was the number
one issue to be considered. Funding means the ability for staff support for
policy development which would improve in quality and speed. Other changes
would be insufficient without adequate funding. The core funding is from the
fees paid by gTLD registrants. Everything else such as ccTLDs should be
looked upon as secondary to setting up the budget.

Both Alejandro Pisanty, Hans Kraaijenbrink and Lyman Chapin agreed on the
importance of funding saying that the present form of collecting money from
the Registrars and Registies should be improved, but care should be taken
about the way this is presented.

Advisory bodies.
Ph. Sheppard stated the NC was in disagreement with the nature of these as
set out by the committee. Better communication was the objective. Technical
advisory bodies needed greater flexibility and do not need to be standing
committees but could come and go. Voting board representation should not be
entrenched as it would impede future advice. Improved communication is
counterbalanced by lack of flexibility i the advisory bodies.

Hans Kraaijenbrink made a distinction between the existence of advisory
committees, and the liaison function between the advisory body and the
board. No finality has been reached on this. Technical advisory committees
with liaison functions where the chair would have full access to the board
meeting with a possibility to intervene in board discussions was being
considered. Whether or not they would have voting capacity would have to be
decided once board composition was established.

Philip Sheppard mentioned that the Names Council is not in favour of
scrapping the Protocol Supporting Organisation and has not heard reasoning
to support replacing it with a technical advisory committee.

General Assembly
Harold Feld expressed concern about the way that the General Assembly was
seen and said that it was a place for individual interests, who do not fit
into constituencies, to have their voice heard. He was concerned that by
eliminating it there would be no room for participants who had no other
voice.

Alejandro Pisanty did not agree with his description and reminded him that
from the beginning there had always been tension as to its role which was
seen as cross constituency dialogue. He felt that this had not happened
despite the great efforts of the present chair to make it meaningful. He
went on further to say that the lack of a meeting place for cross
constituency dialogue has hampered the DNSO functioning. Ways of balancing
the cross constituency dialogue and the large community must be found.

Ph. Sheppard agreed saying that the GA has been forced to try to meet two
objectives (cross-constituency communication and a forum for individuals not
represented in constituencies). The NC believes it better to separate out
the two objectives and then meet both more effectively.

Thomas Roessler, GA chair spoke to the separate roles. He did not want to
lose a place where open public dialogue and cross constituency dialogue
could take place on ICANN issues. Alejandro Pisanty said that the GA has an
anatomy and a physiology (structure and function) and that these two need to
be considered separately.

ccTLDs
Elisabeth Porteneuve said that in the Reform document of 31 May have made
certain assumptions that ccTLDs should accept, but she believes that this
has not been discussed with ccTLDs.. One sentence in particualar is of
concern:
" Policies relating to global issues are developed through the ICANN process
and ccTLD members agree to abide by them"
The ccTLD process is a slow one and certain global policy may be difficult
for them to adopt as they live in a national environment.

Hans Kraaijenbrink agreed with Elisabeth Porteneuve and said that it would
be helpful if the ccTLDs reacted to the question as to what ICANN should do
with them.

Alejandro Pisanty went on to say there was no unified voice and no global
issues. He maintained that there was a need for a balance between global
coordination and and local constraints. He gave the example where in Latin
America and Africa, ccTLDs had been protected from Governments by ICANN.
Hans Kraaijenbrink thanked Oscar Robles for his valuable contribution to the
committee.

Conclusion
Philip Sheppard thanked the three Evolution committee members for their
valuable participation and concluded the meeting saying that he would
forward a final reply from the NC to the committee before the Bucharest
meeting.

The teleconference ended at 17:10

Next NC meeting will be held in the main auditorium of the Marriott Hotel in
Bucharest on Wednesday June 26 at 14:00 local time, 11:00 UTC/GMT

     See all past agendas and minutes at
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/2002calendardnso.html
     and calendar of the NC meetings at
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-calendar.html

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

- --
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 #1325
*************************