Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1339
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, July 25 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1339

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS is dead (or should be): Names Council vote comments

Hi Jeff,

- --- "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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.

Feel free to call me "George"...most everyone else does. I can't see
how proponents of WLS can see that Names Council vote as anything but a
setback for WLS. If they were voting on the process the TF used, and
not the substance, as you're suggesting, then why did the gTLD
constituency vote against the report, calling it "illegitimate"? The
ICANN Board asked for advice, and has now received it. I believe you
and Christine from Verisign were actually *on* the Task Force itself,
and voted. If you truly disputed the process, there should have been a
motion ex-ante, within the Names Council voting members, to eliminate
or reform the Task Force, instead of waiting until the Task Force
concluded its work with a finding that you disagreed with. If the Task
Force had come back in favour of WLS, surely the gTLD, Verisign, and
SnapNames would be crowing about how "the system works", etc.

What "input" should ICANN rely on? Perhaps the 3,000 signatures on the
anti-WLS petition? The vastly negative comments about WLS on the ICANN
WLS Forum? 
 
> By the way, I think it would be great for the ccTLDs to follow
> ICANN's
> mandate and adopt the Redemption Grace Period.

Ditto. I think some of them, as others pointed out, even let one switch
registrars during their "grace period", and thus not be held hostage by
their current registrar.

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 17:07:29 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

Todd and all assembly members,

  You are quite right that this is one of the more serious deficiencies
of WLS.  But it is certainly not the only one.  Versign is touting
WLS as a solution to the DELETE problem.  WLS does not
completely address the DELETE problem as creates several
more problems of market fixing and the like that ICANN
should find as also a COI on several levels...  Making
WLS a "Best Practice" or standard is just not legitimately
thinkable.

However there should be no restriction on Verisign in deploying
WLS of their own accord should they so choose to do so.

todd glassey wrote:

> 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

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:27:59 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS is dead (or should be): Names Council vote comments

Jeff and all assembly members

Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Actually Mr. Kirikos, the Names Council did not vote on rejecting the WLS,
> but rather voted to adopt the report.

  Yeah, I have been trying to get George to understand this important
point that he seems to have missed yet again.

> 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.

  Exactly.  And as such seemingly engineered to be purposefully
confusing as well...

>
>
> 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

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 18:20:22 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS is dead (or should be): Names Council vote comments

Wednesday, July 24, 2002, 1:43:49 PM, Neuman, Jeff <[email-masked]> wrote:
NJ> Actually Mr. Kirikos, the Names Council did not vote on rejecting the WLS,
NJ> but rather voted to adopt the report.  That was a recognition of the process
NJ> the TF used and a recognition that the report adequately represents the view
NJ> of those that participated in the Task Force.  It was not approval for the
NJ> substance contained within the report.  Please do not confuse the  two
NJ> points.

Sounds like it didn't go the way you wanted it to go. Slice hairs and
complain, but what was delivered is exactly per the board's request.
Louis was consulted several times and commented several times on the
propriety of the process and the propriety of the content of the TF
report.  Splitting hairs doesn't change a thing.  It is what it is.

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

It would definitely have gone differently if only gTLD had voted, but
that's like having the bank robber and his family be the only ones on
the jury. I think the ccTLD, in their impartial capacity, was a good
thing for this process.  The implication is disingenuous, at best,
since the ccTLD had no axe to grind.

Everyone had ample time to challenge the composition of the Task
Force. Betting a horse race before they have left the gate is one
thing, but being allowed to bet while they're in the stretch or a nose
from the finish is an entirely different matter. Therefore, those
complaints are less than weak.  I'd call them noise, in fact.

The rhetoric to derail the TF and the process, substantially by the
gTLD, wasted over an hour of everyone's time in the NC meeting, plus
the time of those who listened to the recording afterwards.  It is a
sorry state when a faction decides to become part of the problem
rather than part of the solution, but that is their choice.

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

I think it would be good, too.  There's no evidence that they won't do
that either, but what does this have to do with anything, anyway?  The
negative implications are not on point and suggest to me that you've
run out of real ammunition.

At the end of the day, sour grapes are just sour grapes.

Thanks,

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

NJ> Hello,

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

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

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

NJ> The final report of the Transfers Task Force, see:

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

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

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

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

NJ> and also in the courts.

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

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

NJ> My predictions:

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

NJ> Sincerely,

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

NJ> __________________________________________________
NJ> Do You Yahoo!?
NJ> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
NJ> http://health.yahoo.com
NJ> --
NJ> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
NJ> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
NJ> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
NJ> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
NJ> --
NJ> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
NJ> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
NJ> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
NJ> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:27:28 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf minutes July 11, 2002

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

ICANN/DNSO

        DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 11 July 2002 - minutes
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 July 2002.

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

List of attendees:

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

16 Names Council Members

Louis Touton           ICANN Staff
Theresa Swinehart      ICANN Staff

Thomas Roessler        GA Chair
Alexander Svensson     GA Alternate Chair

Glen de Saint Géry     NC Secretary
Philippe Renaut          MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat

MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020711.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/20020711.NCteleconf-agenda.html
The agenda was approved.

Item 1. Summary of last meeting:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020617.NCteleconf-minutes.html
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020626.NCbucharest-minutes.html

Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the summaries seconded by J. Scott Evans,
The motion was carried.

Decision 1: Motion adopted.

Item 3. Notice of next extra meeting July 24, at 15:00 Paris time, 13:00
UTC.
The reason for the extra meeting is to vote on the final report on the Wait
Listing Service after it has been sent out for comments before it goes to
the Board. The timing has been dictated by this schedule. It was hoped this
would be a short meeting, though it was suggested that the extra meeting be
used for further comments that may be requested from the Evolution and
Reform committee.
Next Names Council teleconference: July 24, 2002 13:00 UTC.

Item 2 : Wait Listing Service - status report and time table for NC approval
Marilyn Cade said that the report had been presented to the Names Council at
the Bucharest meeting and was repeated at the Public Forum. The Task Force
had a teleconference on July 10, 2002, and the following amended policy
recommendations that had been approved by the Task Force for submission to
the Names Council were read:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00342.html
The next step is to put the report on the DNSO web site for public comment
until July 22, after which the comments would be included in the report. The
Names Council on July 24, 2002, would then vote on the report before it was
sent off to the Board to meet the deadline of July 26.

Discussion: J. Scott Evans asked if there was consensus in the TF. R.
Cochetti said that the gTLD Constituency does not support the work of the
Task Force both in substance and scope as he believed the level of detail
was beyond the scope of the Names Council.

Louis Touton commented on this:
The Board had adopted two resolutions specifically asking for
recommendations from the Names Council on this topic. In Bucharest it noted
the presentation made by Grant Forsyth. Recommendations from the Names
Council were asked for by July 26, 2002 so that the Board could act after
receiving the presentation. In Bucharest, the board mentioned the importance
of addressing new input from Verisign.

M. Cade explained that the draft Task Force report made a core
recommendation for the Board to not approve WLS. It also made a series of
supplemental recommendations to ameliorate negative effects  should the
Board chose to ignore the core rcommendation and indeed adopt the WLS.

J. Scott Evans and Roger Cochetti both questioned why the recommendations
did not provide just one option. Ken Stubbs said that it was important to
respond to the Board's request.

Harold Feld said that he believed the Board looks at the DNSO as a series of
discussions to determine what consensus is. It is up to the Board to look at
the work done and determine consensus, thus the Task Force should develop
conversation rather than be an arbitrator.

Marilyn Cade said that the final report would be put up for Public comment,
each constituency will be given the opportunity to comment, then the final
report goes to the Names Council to be voted on before it is sent to the
Board after the July 24 Names Council meeting.

Item 4: Voting rights of non-commercial and ccTLD constituencies
- - Non-commercial constituency (recommendation of Budget committee).

Philip Sheppard introduced this item by asking which constituencies had paid
their dues?
Two constituencies were fully paid up, Business and IP, while the ISPCPC was
in the process of collecting funds and the Registrars could not confirm a
report that they had paid. The gTLD constituency reported that they had
taken no decision to pay or not to pay.

Non-commercial constituency. The Budget Committee have recommended that they
believe the non-commercial constituency has successfully shown cause why
they have not to date paid their outstanding dues, and so their right to
vote should not be suspended.
Recommendation: -
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.

17 votes in favour and 3 abstentions from the IP constituency
Decision 2: Motion carried

- - ccTLDs
Philip Sheppard said that the ccTLDs did not respond to the original show
cause notice but have responsed belatedly.

Elisabeth Porteneuve made several points points to explain  why the voting
rights of the ccTLDS should not be suspended.
- - in the past one ccTLDs had supported the DNSO secretariat pro-bono.
- - the ccTLDs had begun working on a separate supporting organisation, over a
year ago because the issues related to global space for gTLDs and ccTLDs
were different That work had come to temporary halt because of the ICANN
Reform and the constituency had expected by now to have left the DNSO.
- - in the present situation towards ICANN 2 ccTLDs and gTLDs must work
together. If the ccTLDs were denied voting rights this channel of
communication would be withdrawn and harmful to the ICANN reform process
which is the key issue for all constituencies now.

In discussion
Ken Stubbs said that the ccTLD constituency expressed approval of the budget
and methodology for collecting funds which placed an obligation on the
constituency to honour their word and pay their dues and they are not
meeting their contractual obligations.
J.Scott while sympathetic with the non-commercials said his constituency
feels that they are supporting the non paying constituencies, and that
perhaps a reduced fee would make it possible for the ccTLDs to contribute
something.
Harold Feld supported the ccTLD motion and understood J. Scott Evans's
frustration but felt that in the extraordinary times the participation of
all stakeholders is essential and that Elisabeth Porteneuve should ask the
constituency to access what contribution they could make.
Ken Stubbs questioned whether the ccTLD constituency refused to pay from
June 2001 as was set out in the communique after the Montevideo meeting as
they were forming their own supporting organisation, or were they waiting
for a reconstitution of ICANN and intended to meet their commitments they
voted on?
Philip Sheppard summarised the ccTLD payment position, showing that the
constituency had paid some fees in every year.
Elisabeth Porteneuve replied saying that there were a lot of grievances
among the ccTLD, an international group that works slowly. They have been
discussing funds:
- - some are unwilling to participate and are bitter
- - others are willing to participate
- - some cannot pay.
Members have to be persuaded to pay, there is no mandatory body and they pay
if they feel it is worthwhile. They have paid a million dollars to ICANN and
have received little service. The DNSO is seen as part of ICANN.It is
incorrect to say that they have not addressed the issue, they have. With
regard to the Stockholm communique, there was confusion about the fiscal
year of DNSO and ICANN which is different.
Ken Stubbs felt that it was important to keep the ccTLD in the process but
it was incumbent on them to honour their debts.
Philip Sheppard asked when would be the earliest a commitment could be given
to pay in principle taking the diverse nature of the ccTLD decision making
process into account? Elisabeth Porteneuve said that she could not get
binding decision form the ccTLD constituency on financial matters. It
depends on participation which is difficult at different levels.

Discussion ended as the meeting lost quorum: ccTLD voting rights would be
unaffected until then.

Item 5: Reform Process
- - next steps for NC following adoption by the ICANN Board of the Blueprint.
It was noted that there would be new papers on implementation and that the
NC should prepare to react to them. In the meantime, it was agreed that Ph.
Sheppard  would highlight points compatible with the Board's resolutions to
input at an early stage into the implementation process. Louis Touton said
that the Board was establishing a process for implementation and if the
Names Council had suggestions on implementation it would be very useful.

In answer to a question from Tony Harris whether the Names Council would sit
as it is today in Shangai, Louis Touton was not able to predict anything.

The teleconference ended at 17:00

Next NC teleconference will be on Wednesday July 24 at 15:00 Paris time,
13:00 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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 15:34:18 -0400
From: Ken Stubbs <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Swiss surveillance catches up with email

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- --Boundary_(ID_D/tmpBxFsE0c85d75nkArw)
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="Boundary_(ID_Txv/XNWngvIvV+kLqjgjDg)"

- --Boundary_(ID_Txv/XNWngvIvV+kLqjgjDg)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

GA members  might wish to take a look at his article 

ken stubbs

- --Boundary_(ID_Txv/XNWngvIvV+kLqjgjDg)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>GA members&nbsp; might wish to take a look at his article 
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>ken stubbs</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- --Boundary_(ID_Txv/XNWngvIvV+kLqjgjDg)--

- --Boundary_(ID_D/tmpBxFsE0c85d75nkArw)
Content-type: application/octet-stream; name=Swissinfo.url
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: attachment; filename=Swissinfo.url

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www2.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo.html?siteSect=111&sid=1192676
Modified=10F883191234C201AD

- --Boundary_(ID_D/tmpBxFsE0c85d75nkArw)--
- --
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 #1339
*************************