Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1338
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, July 24 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1338

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Working Paper on At Large Advisory Committee

On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> >Why not just have the groups directly inerface with ICANN?
> 
> let me explain by taking a look at a very different Advisory
> Committee...

Please note that "Advisory" means that the advice has no force, no ability 
to compel.

That means that an "advisory" body has no ability to hold ICANN to account 
for its actions.

And it is accountability to the public that is so completely lacking from 
ICANN.

An "advisory" body would be a sham and an insult to the public and its 
interest in the way that the Internet is run.

The public requires a way to clearly mandate its views upon ICANN.  This
means, at a minimum, the ability to select the majority of people who sit,
with full powers, on ICANN's decision making organs.

Nothing less is adequate.

> ... but the GAC is the formal interface between governments and ICANN.

About the only "formal" role that I, as a member of ICANN's Board of
Directors, have observed for the GAC is that its chairman often attends
the pre-meeting dinner and that it issues highly equivocal reports
designed to offend no one.

> User groups currently *don't* have that kind of interface.

Of course, not.  ICANN has made it clear that the public interest is
simply not part of ICANN's interest.

Why do you think that ICANN would reverse its historical stance and
respond to a public advisory committee?

The public deserves nothing less than the ability to seat, and unseat, a
majority of the members of ICANN's highest decision-making body.

		--karl--

- --
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, 23 Jul 2002 16:57:08 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Working Paper on At Large Advisory Committee

On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 02:49:46PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> 
> > >Why not just have the groups directly inerface with ICANN?
> > 
> > let me explain by taking a look at a very different Advisory
> > Committee...
> 
> Please note that "Advisory" means that the advice has no force, no ability 
> to compel.
> 
> That means that an "advisory" body has no ability to hold ICANN to account 
> for its actions.
> 
> And it is accountability to the public that is so completely lacking from 
> ICANN.

How is Microsoft accountable to the public?

> An "advisory" body would be a sham and an insult to the public and its 
> interest in the way that the Internet is run.
> 
> The public requires a way to clearly mandate its views upon ICANN.

How is it that the public mandates its views on Microsoft, a monopoly?
How does the public get oversight over any monopoly?

>  This
> means, at a minimum, the ability to select the majority of people who sit,
> with full powers, on ICANN's decision making organs.
>
> Nothing less is adequate.

Why doesn't the public sit on the "decision making organs" (love that 
phrase) of Microsoft?

[...]

> The public deserves nothing less than the ability to seat, and unseat, a
> majority of the members of ICANN's highest decision-making body.

Why not the same for Microsoft?  Why is it that anti-trust enforcement 
is not sufficient for ICANN?  ICANN's "monopoly" has far, far less 
impact on society than Microft's monopoly.
- --
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, 24 Jul 2002 03:05:16 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Working Paper on At Large Advisory Committee

On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, at 16:57 [=GMT-0700], [email-masked] wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 02:49:46PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:

> > The public deserves nothing less than the ability to seat, and unseat, a
> > majority of the members of ICANN's highest decision-making body.
>
> Why not the same for Microsoft?  Why is it that anti-trust enforcement
> is not sufficient for ICANN?  ICANN's "monopoly" has far, far less
> impact on society than Microft's monopoly.

Microsoft does not claim that there is only one operating system. ICANN
does claim that there is only one root.

- --
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, 23 Jul 2002 20:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Working Paper on At Large Advisory Committee

On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> > And it is accountability to the public that is so completely lacking from 
> > ICANN.
> 
> How is Microsoft accountable to the public?

I am surprised that you don't know this.  Please turn to page one of
Shareholder Rights for Dummies:

Call up a stock broker, buy one share of Microsoft common stock (which you
can do today for a few dollars) and you get:

  - A vote for directors (and often a vote to recall a director.)

  - Access to corporate information.

  - A right to bring lawsuits to compel directors and management to
    operate the corporation properly.  (In some cases the cost of this
    lawsuit must be borne by the corporation itself.)

  - The right to vote on certain topics, including amendments to the 
    Articles of Corporation and other parts of organic documents.

  - The right to put measures before the shareholders that, if accepted
    by the shareholders, will supersede acts of the board.

  - The right to gather with other shareholders to call meetings.

  - The right to know who the other shareholders are so that you can
    aggregate your voice and form voting blocs or to solicit proxies.

  etc.

That's called accountability.

And it only costs a one-time price of a few dollars.

Enron, Andersen, Global Crossing, and Worldcom are discovering the force
of that public accountability.

ICANN, on the other hand, has repudiated its obligation to serve the
public and be accountable to the public.  And that is a very strange thing
indeed for a corporation that is organized as a "public-benefit"  
corporation, particularly one that obtains a subsidy from the public via
its tax exempt status.

		--karl--

- --
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, 24 Jul 2002 00:41:39 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Registrars:  on Transfers & Whois Data mining 

FYI:  The registrar executive committee has approved the following letter 
(posted at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02798.html )

Dear Stuart and Vint:

As the Board continues its Herculean task in connection with the ICANN
Evolution and Reform process, I would respectfully request that the ICANN
Board and staff allocate time and resources for a public discussion of
inter-registrar transfers ("transfers") and the mining of registrar Whois
data during the upcoming Shanghai meeting.

The issue of transfers is the foundation upon which domain name portability
is based, and the mechanism by which consumers are able to chose their
registrar of record. Approximately one year ago, I sent to the you and the
Board a letter from the Registrar Constituency summarizing this problem, see
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/palage-to-lynn-16aug01.htm. The
constituency first attempted to resolve this matter in a timely fashion as a
contract interpretation over what constituted "apparent authority".
Unfortunately, this issue fell prey to the short comings of the current
ICANN process and has failed to be resolved in a timely manner.

I continue to get complaints from registrars and their customers over the
frustration in their inability to effectuate registrar transfers. This
issues has been further complicated by some registrars that are allegedly
refusing to provide registrants with the necessary Authorization Code in
connection with EPP registries (Afilias and NeuLevel). The fact that the
Names Council's Transfer Task Force has yet to address the matter for which
it is named, while instead tackling unrelated issues such as the WLS and the
Redemption Grace Period, is why the ICANN Board and staff are needed to
intercede and resolve this issue which is directly impacting those parties
with which ICANN has contractual relationships.

Another issue that has recently emerged is the mining of registrar's whois
databases. Upon information and belief this tortuous activity has resulted
in questionable marketing practices and an influx of Spam. In light of
recent national governmental attempts to limit Spam and protect users'
privacy, I believe that this issue should be made a topic for public debate
in Shanghai.

If the ICANN Board and staff can confirm that these two issues will be the
subject of a public forum in Shanghai, I will take the necessary steps with
the registrar constituency to prepare documents and position papers to
properly frame and expedite public discussion.

A third issue that registrars find important and which they will attempt to
address through our representative Bruce Tonkin on the GNSO Task Force, is
the need for contracting parties with ICANN to resolve/clarify contractual
issues in a timely fashion. The Registrar Constituency is not persuaded that
the current proposals for the reform of the DNSO are adequate to this task,
and think that ICANN should have a better means for dealing with contractual
interpretation and enforcement. The Registrar Constituency continues to
support the evolution and reform process underway, and believes that this
issue can be incorporated into the current Blueprint document.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter and I eagerly await
confirmation of my request. If you feel that this email is of value to the
rest of the board I would respectfully request that you forward it to them.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage
Chair of the Registrar Constituency,
on behalf of the Registrar Constituency
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 01:31:34 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] Former ICANN father figure criticizes domain body

Hans, 

Listening to Ira Magaziner at today's CATO Institute session was indeed a 
rare moment, and I was pleased to note the high degree of interest on the 
part of the press.  

Accountability is rapidly becoming the issue du jour.  In addition to David's 
article in the Washington Post you can expect to see articles by Dugie 
(Washington Internet Daily), Andy (Reuters), and Declan, all of whom were 
there covering the event as well.  Comments of note:  Harold Feld and Milton 
Mueller both raised the issue of the need for a re-bid of the ICANN 
contracts.  Richard Hill (not a panelist, but an attendee) spoke briefly on 
behalf of the ITU, and Mike Roberts admittedly made some excellent 
observations  (I see that the full text of his remarks have already been 
posted to http://www.lextext.com/MMR-RemarksCato.html ).  

Judging from the roster of attendees at this event, I think it is fairly 
clear that Washington is making a real effort to "listen" to the concerns of 
the user community.  Meanwhile, ICANN continues to think of the At-Large as 
nothing more than the rat-hole into which they have sunk three years worth of 
resources.  In my view, they will do nothing more than feign an interest in 
"listening" in order to pacify the DoC.  

You are correct in asserting that the user community can and must continue to 
speak out in support of accountability.  Now is the time to renew the effort 
with even greater vigor.  

- --
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, 24 Jul 2002 12:17:52 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
>In preparation for the NC discussion and vote on the final report of the Transfers task force on the Wait List Service referral, please see below the result of the internal vote of the task force on their report. (Edits for clarity are mine.)
>Philip.
>
>----------------------------------
>I. Recommendation  1:  To deny the WLS:
>
>A. RGP The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively enforce the
>proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice
>Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, gTLD, Registrars, BC
>Accepted by all
>
>B. WLS and agreement. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to amend its agreement to
>enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
>Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
>No: IP, gTLD
>6 YES          2 NO
>
>C. WLS trial. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS for 12 months.
>Yes: ccTLd, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
>No: gTLD
>Abstain: NonC, IP
>5 YES            1 NO      2 ABSTENTIONS
>
>I. Summary Recommendation to deny the WLS:
>Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
>No: IP, gTLD
>6 YES              2 NO
>
>II. Contingency recommendations in event the Board rejects the TF prime recommendation.
>Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted above
>and grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12 month
>trial of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be approved with
>conditions:
>
>A. RGP. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation and proven
>(for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
>Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and the
>establishment of a standard deletion practise.
>Yes:ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, Registrars, BC
>No:gTLD
>7 YES 1 NO
>
>B. Deletions. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard deletion practise
>be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this could be
>considered separately from WLS.
>
>(CHOICE OF ONE OF THREE):
>
>1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as WLS and
>implemented before WLS.
>Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA,  Registrars, BC
>5 YES
>2) Standard deletion practise should be established, but need not be in
>place before
>WLS is implemented.
>Yes: IP, NonC
>2 YES
>
>3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
>Yes: gTLD
>1 YES
>C. Information/notice. (CHOICE OF ONE OF TWO).
>
>C. 1. 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.
>Yes: GA, NonC,
>2 YES
>                       
>C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
>name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
>Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, IP, BC, .Registrars
>Abstain: gTLD,
>5 YES         1 Abstain
>
>D. Transparency. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency as to who has placed
>a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the option.
>Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
>No: IP
>Abstain: gTLD
>6 YES         1 NO       1 Abstain
>
>E. Cost.  WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous considerations for
>approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
>Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, , Registrars, BC
>Abstain: IP, gTLD, NonC
>5 YES        3 Abstain
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------

- --
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, 24 Jul 2002 07:03:28 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New Research: "Registrations in Open ccTLDs"

Inline response below -

TSG.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] New Research: "Registrations in Open ccTLDs"

> Ben and all assembly members,
>
> Ben Edelman wrote:
>
> > GA members have on multiple occasions discussed registrations in open
> > ccTLDs -- remarking on ccTLDs like .CC, .TV, and .WS which have opened
their
> > registration systems to anyone interested, worldwide.  In recent
research, I
> > have investigated the ways that these ccTLDs are used, placing
particular
> > emphasis on their apparent use and non-use, on defensive registrations,
on
> > warehousing, and on cybersquatting.  In my recent "Registrations in Open
> > ccTLDs," I attempt to quantify each of these behaviors.
> >
> > I first report the number of open ccTLD web pages indexed by Google,
finding
> > open ccTLDs to be less than one one-hundredth as large as .COM when
measured
> > in this way.
>
>   Yes this is a problem with allot of search engines as has been pointed
out
> some time ago on this forum and maintained on a number of occasions by
> various media sources such as Wired, and CMBC..  However using google
> or any search engine that I am familiar with or have used myself doesn't
in
> any way reflect accurately the registration of domain names in ccTLD
> name spaces in comparison with .COM or even .NET...

There is some insane idea here that the .COM and other TLD entries in most
Search Engines are correct and this is fatuous at best. The fact is that a
serious statistctical amount of the pages catalogued are broken links (in
that they are totally gone) or are moved ones. And yet Google and other Open
Directory list members list them as ACTIVE and VALID... My take is that this
in moving forward will be their biggest problem to solve, that is
continuously being ableto demonstrate thattheir links are live and good.

The issue to date has been that in developing their business that they need
to claim some number of pages catalogued. The problem is that they are more
interested in the total number of pages and not in the total number of
provably active pages. This means that there is no real method of
determining the what and where with whom in today's Search Systems.

What is clearly going to happen is that the market will push the Search
Engines to refresh their listings from active pages only and the real value
of Google may be in getting it to willingly trim the dead listings from its
infrastructure.

Todd Glassey

SNIP --

- --
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, 24 Jul 2002 07:12:26 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

The problem with the WLS is simple- it will cause a liability in operations
against ICANN in that it assumes that the marks or Internet Domain Names
that have to date been treated as trade marks are not that, and that they
are the ONE and ONLY MARQUE used by that IP Holder.

This makes the Internet Domain Name a separate class of Marque and this
would take an act of law to put in place.

They (the WLS Registrars) also are looking to put in place that because
these "marques" are only valid during the period of being registered, that
the instant the registration expires that the owners has officially
abandoned the marque and that is ludicrous at best. This erroneous
assumption of US Trademark Law would then place the marque further into the
control of the registrar and not the real owner of the marque.

The rules about trademark Intellectual Property are simple and have been in
effect for much longer than there was an Internet, so without modifying
them, the WLS itself is probably illegal in my estimation and will likely be
challenged in court.

The net effect is that anyone suffering damages due to what I consider a
"commercially self-centered" policy, should just sue the registrar and ICANN
jointly for the damages. And I assure you that the veil of the corporation
is most likely easily pierced in such a situation. And pierced  such that
the ICANN Board Members can be held financially accountable for damages in
WLS based damage claims... personally.

My feeling is that it will be very interesting to see how this works out,
since I am sure ICANN's director's insurance would not cover a malicious act
of creating a system that intentionally allows to usurping of existing
marques.  And what also about certain registrar's refusals to delete expired
domains or to allow transfers to happen to domains... Seems like we have the
same problem. The registers controlling access to IP's they do not own.

Todd Glassey

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
To: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 3:17 AM
Subject: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

>
>
> From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
> >In preparation for the NC discussion and vote on the final report of the
Transfers task force on the Wait List Service referral, please see below the
result of the internal vote of the task force on their report. (Edits for
clarity are mine.)
> >Philip.
> >
> >----------------------------------
> >I. Recommendation  1:  To deny the WLS:
> >
> >A. RGP The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively
enforce the
> >proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice
> >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, gTLD, Registrars, BC
> >Accepted by all
> >
> >B. WLS and agreement. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to amend
its agreement to
> >enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
> >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> >No: IP, gTLD
> >6 YES          2 NO
> >
> >C. WLS trial. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS
for 12 months.
> >Yes: ccTLd, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
> >No: gTLD
> >Abstain: NonC, IP
> >5 YES            1 NO      2 ABSTENTIONS
> >
> >I. Summary Recommendation to deny the WLS:
> >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> >No: IP, gTLD
> >6 YES              2 NO
> >
> >II. Contingency recommendations in event the Board rejects the TF prime
recommendation.
> >Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted above
> >and grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12 month
> >trial of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be approved
with
> >conditions:
> >
> >A. RGP. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation and
proven
> >(for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
> >Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and the
> >establishment of a standard deletion practise.
> >Yes:ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, Registrars, BC
> >No:gTLD
> >7 YES 1 NO
> >
> >B. Deletions. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard
deletion practise
> >be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this could
be
> >considered separately from WLS.
> >
> >(CHOICE OF ONE OF THREE):
> >
> >1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as WLS
and
> >implemented before WLS.
> >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA,  Registrars, BC
> >5 YES
> >2) Standard deletion practise should be established, but need not be in
> >place before
> >WLS is implemented.
> >Yes: IP, NonC
> >2 YES
> >
> >3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
> >Yes: gTLD
> >1 YES
> >C. Information/notice. (CHOICE OF ONE OF TWO).
> >
> >C. 1. 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.
> >Yes: GA, NonC,
> >2 YES
> >
> >C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
> >name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
> >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, IP, BC, .Registrars
> >Abstain: gTLD,
> >5 YES         1 Abstain
> >
> >D. Transparency. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency as
to who has placed
> >a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the option.
> >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> >No: IP
> >Abstain: gTLD
> >6 YES         1 NO       1 Abstain
> >
> >E. Cost.  WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous
considerations for
> >approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
> >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, , Registrars, BC
> >Abstain: IP, gTLD, NonC
> >5 YES        3 Abstain
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:26:19 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf MP3  recording 24 July, 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/mp3/20020724.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: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:10:55 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Working Paper on At Large Advisory Committee

On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 08:18:05PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> > > And it is accountability to the public that is so completely lacking from 
> > > ICANN.
> > 
> > How is Microsoft accountable to the public?
> 
> I am surprised that you don't know this.  Please turn to page one of
> Shareholder Rights for Dummies:
> 
> Call up a stock broker, buy one share of Microsoft common stock (which you
> can do today for a few dollars) and you get:
>
>   - A vote for directors (and often a vote to recall a director.)

[...]

So you believe, therefore, that ICANN should sell votes? :-)

Seriously, you are confusing two different things.  There is a
substantial difference between accountability to *shareholders* and
accountability to the *public* -- the interests of shareholders and the
interests of the public are often at odds.  Shareholders in Microsoft
are a small minority of the public, and no one would claim that
accountability to shareholders is sufficient.  In fact, shareholder
accountability is essentially equivalent to "stakeholder
accountability", in the ICANN millieu, and this is something that you
have argued vehemently against. 

Moreover, in the case of a public company like Microsoft, large monied
interests totally dominate, and the "rights" you claim that you get as
the holder of a single share are theoretical, rather than practical. 

In the case of a public company like Microsoft, accountability to
the *public* comes through totally different mechanisms, of which the
salient one for our purposes is anti-trust.

[The most powerful form of accountability for a for-profit company is, 
of course, the market.]

Anyway, sorry for the distraction from Alex's working paper.

Kent
- --
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, 24 Jul 2002 11:15:00 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Working Paper on At Large Advisory Committee

At 9:10 AM -0700 7/24/02, [email-masked] wrote:
>Moreover, in the case of a public company like Microsoft, large monied
>interests totally dominate, and the "rights" you claim that you get as
>the holder of a single share are theoretical, rather than practical.

s/public company like Microsoft/non-profit like ICANN/

Same outcome.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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, 24 Jul 2002 10:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS is dead (or should be): Names Council vote comments

Hello,

For those who didn't have time to listen to the Names Council
conference call and vote recorded at:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020724.NCteleconf.mp3

it was interesting (the actual vote on WLS took place at 1 hour and 17
minutes into the MP3, for those who want to fast forward).

The final report of the Transfers Task Force, see:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00406.html

which, on a CONSENSUS basis rejected WLS, was approved in full by the
Names Council Board, with only the gTLD Constituency voting against it.
Thus, the Names Council vote itself was a CONSENSUS majority against
WLS.

I believe that the ICANN board would be unwise to allow implementation
of WLS, ignoring that vote of the Names Council and its constituencies,
and also given the ability of negatively affected registrars to issue a
challenge based on my comments at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00303.html

and also in the courts.

I found it interesting to note the attempts by some Names Council
members to exclude the ccTLD constituency voting on the WLS (which
could have made it a non-consensus vote), saying that "WLS didn't
affect them", among other arguments. I was appalled that they'd stoop
to those levels, to disenfranchise a constituency once they were
discovered to be anti-WLS (previously, I had thought the ccTLDs were
pro-WLS, and I was pleasantly surprised that they did their homework
and talked to their members, and reviewed all the arguments and came
out against WLS). I echo the sentiments of another Names Council member
who stated that if someone had a concern about a constituency's
involvement in the Task Force, it should have been made ex-ante, not
ex-post after their final position was made.

Kudos to the Business Council members on the Board. If the GA
disappears, I think that's the "team" I'd want to be on (they seemed to
have the most logical and articulate members). I think Marilyn Cade
deserves great thanks (from those both for AND against WLS) for doing a
fantastic job taking input from all sides, especially given the time
constraints involved.

My predictions:

1) WLS is denied by the ICANN Board by this time next week.
2) SnapNames downsizes, and reduces its price for SnapBacks back to
$49. I don't think they'll go bankrupt, as they have a great service,
although it should not be a monopoly service in my opinion (thus my
opposition to WLS). The downsizing would mostly affect the "political"
employees of SnapNames (i.e. those mostly doing non-technical lobbying
activities), so I don't see this as a bad thing, because those
employees aren't truly "productive" in an economic sense, producing
valuable goods and services for consumers. I expect them to end up with
15 or so employees, a tight group.
3) SnapNames probably introduces an auction service for domain
resellers/buyers to complement their SnapBacks (i.e. competing against
GreatDomains and Afternic), and becomes the top auction marketplace.
4) Verisign renegotiates its R&D commitments of $200 million with
ICANN, to save money (I think they can get it down to $100 million with
not many people caring).
5) The expired names marketplace sees more and more competition and
innovation, with benefits to registrars and consumers.
6) Verisign eventually gets bought out by IBM or Microsoft, for under
$2 billion (2 or 3 year time frame). :)

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.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, 24 Jul 2002 11:01:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS is dead (or should be): Names Council vote comments

On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, George Kirikos wrote:

>
> I found it interesting to note the attempts by some Names Council
> members to exclude the ccTLD constituency voting on the WLS (which
> could have made it a non-consensus vote), saying that "WLS didn't
> affect them", among other arguments. I was appalled that they'd stoop

I thought the ccTLDs had not paid their DNSO membership fees for something
like 18 months and that their voting privalges were nearly revoked. I'm
not up on the details but it seems like the ccTLDs have marginalized
themselves in the DNSO NC...

- -rick

- --
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, 24 Jul 2002 13:43:49 -0500
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS is dead (or should be): Names Council vote comments

Actually Mr. Kirikos, the Names Council did not vote on rejecting the WLS,
but rather voted to adopt the report.  That was a recognition of the process
the TF used and a recognition that the report adequately represents the view
of those that participated in the Task Force.  It was not approval for the
substance contained within the report.  Please do not confuse the  two
points.

I also think you misunderstand the points raised during the meeting with
respect to the ccTLDs.  After listening to the archives myself, I understood
the debate to focus on whether the ccTLDs should be allowed to vote on
something that they themselves have admitted was a gTLD (and not a ccTLD
issue)  They are voting to impose restrictions on gTLDs that they themselves
would never agree to in a million years.  In fact, interestingly enough the
ccTLDs voted to have ICANN move "hastily to implement the Redemption Grace
Period."  Does this mean that the ccTLDs are agreeing to have ICANN
implement the RGP and that by voting to impose it on the gTLDs, that they
are agreeing to adopt it themselves?  Of course, not.  I believe that is the
concern expressed by the gTLD Constituency representatives.  

By the way, I think it would be great for the ccTLDs to follow ICANN's
mandate and adopt the Redemption Grace Period.

- -----Original Message-----
From: George Kirikos [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 1:47 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] WLS is dead (or should be): Names Council vote comments

Hello,

For those who didn't have time to listen to the Names Council
conference call and vote recorded at:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020724.NCteleconf.mp3

it was interesting (the actual vote on WLS took place at 1 hour and 17
minutes into the MP3, for those who want to fast forward).

The final report of the Transfers Task Force, see:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00406.html

which, on a CONSENSUS basis rejected WLS, was approved in full by the
Names Council Board, with only the gTLD Constituency voting against it.
Thus, the Names Council vote itself was a CONSENSUS majority against
WLS.

I believe that the ICANN board would be unwise to allow implementation
of WLS, ignoring that vote of the Names Council and its constituencies,
and also given the ability of negatively affected registrars to issue a
challenge based on my comments at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00303.html

and also in the courts.

I found it interesting to note the attempts by some Names Council
members to exclude the ccTLD constituency voting on the WLS (which
could have made it a non-consensus vote), saying that "WLS didn't
affect them", among other arguments. I was appalled that they'd stoop
to those levels, to disenfranchise a constituency once they were
discovered to be anti-WLS (previously, I had thought the ccTLDs were
pro-WLS, and I was pleasantly surprised that they did their homework
and talked to their members, and reviewed all the arguments and came
out against WLS). I echo the sentiments of another Names Council member
who stated that if someone had a concern about a constituency's
involvement in the Task Force, it should have been made ex-ante, not
ex-post after their final position was made.

Kudos to the Business Council members on the Board. If the GA
disappears, I think that's the "team" I'd want to be on (they seemed to
have the most logical and articulate members). I think Marilyn Cade
deserves great thanks (from those both for AND against WLS) for doing a
fantastic job taking input from all sides, especially given the time
constraints involved.

My predictions:

1) WLS is denied by the ICANN Board by this time next week.
2) SnapNames downsizes, and reduces its price for SnapBacks back to
$49. I don't think they'll go bankrupt, as they have a great service,
although it should not be a monopoly service in my opinion (thus my
opposition to WLS). The downsizing would mostly affect the "political"
employees of SnapNames (i.e. those mostly doing non-technical lobbying
activities), so I don't see this as a bad thing, because those
employees aren't truly "productive" in an economic sense, producing
valuable goods and services for consumers. I expect them to end up with
15 or so employees, a tight group.
3) SnapNames probably introduces an auction service for domain
resellers/buyers to complement their SnapBacks (i.e. competing against
GreatDomains and Afternic), and becomes the top auction marketplace.
4) Verisign renegotiates its R&D commitments of $200 million with
ICANN, to save money (I think they can get it down to $100 million with
not many people caring).
5) The expired names marketplace sees more and more competition and
innovation, with benefits to registrars and consumers.
6) Verisign eventually gets bought out by IBM or Microsoft, for under
$2 billion (2 or 3 year time frame). :)

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1338
*************************