Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1342
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, July 27 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1342

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 16:30:09 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] New Letter from Victory to Lynn

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/doc-to-icann-25jul02.htm
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:03:46 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

...and who appointed William Walsh the arbiter of what is appropriate for 
discussion in this forum?

Even the White Paper recognized the contribution of alternative registry 
operators to the community's dialogue on the evolution of DNS administration, 
specifically citing name.space, AlterNIC, and eDNS affiliated registries.  

John raised valid questions regarding root-level monopolies, ICANN's role as 
a regulator,  ICANN's legitimacy, and ICANN's authority.  

Why do such questions have "nothing to do with this forum"?  

- --
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: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 08:55:57 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|> On Behalf Of John Palmer
|> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 5:54 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
|> 
<SNIP>
|> 
|> What real authority do they have? (hint: none, unless people 
|> continue to be sheep and point their ISP resolvers or 
|> individual machines at ICANN/USG roots).
|> 
|> They are a corrupt monopoly. Plain and simple.

So we should all point our NS at your and the alternative roots and let
you as private citizens have the monopoly without any community voice at
all and only market forces to provide any protection?

I don't think so.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch. 

- --
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: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:30:56 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] What deal was made?

ICANN-Accredited Registrars Formally Approve ICANN Registrar Fees for 
2002-2003
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-26jul02.htm

One has to wonder what deal was cut to convince VeriSign to change their 
formal position on this matter... Bruce Beckwith's original comments on the 
subject on 24 June are found here:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02625.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: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 20:11:21 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] What deal was made?

VRSN isn't on the list.

Thanks,

- -rwr
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 7:30 PM
Subject: [ga] What deal was made?

> ICANN-Accredited Registrars Formally Approve ICANN Registrar Fees for
> 2002-2003
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-26jul02.htm
>
> One has to wonder what deal was cut to convince VeriSign to change their
> formal position on this matter... Bruce Beckwith's original comments on
the
> subject on 24 June are found here:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02625.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
>

- --
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: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 20:37:13 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] What deal was made?

Yea - I instinctively jumped to "V" which comes after "T"ucows and didn't
look at "N" ;)

- -rwr
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] What deal was made?

> Aren't they listed as "Network Solutions, Inc. Registrar" on the list, or
is
> this some other entity?

- --
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: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:47:10 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

Todd and all assembly members,

todd glassey wrote:

> Jeff- lets take this a step farther...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>; "Alexander Svensson"
> <[email-masked]>; "icann board address" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 5:07 PM
> 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.
>
> No the real problem is the Name Squatters and  the Registrars that own a
> Name Squatting Company or that are partnered with one.

  I admit this is ONE of the other problems, but not the main problem
really, but rather a symptomatic product of the problem that WLS
properties to address.  That again being the Delete concern/problem.

> The other problem is
> that there is still only one fricken ROOT here. The Root Zone Protocol and
> the running of multiple simultaneous and separate roots is critical in
> moving forward.

  I agree.  A single Root structure, as I have frequently argued amongst
a host of others, is critical for a number of already well argued reasons...

>
>
> > 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.
>
> Ewww - I disagre with you BIG TIME. No one should be allowed to do anything
> like a WLS since it clearly puts the Registrar at odds with their original
> customer.

  I understand your position here.  I don't agree with it however.

>
>
> For example -  if the Domain is hosted (published) by Verisign as as booked
> for WLS, well that there is an unfair advantage accorded to Verisign in that
> the instant the domain becomes expired the WLS factor is triggered and the
> domain is automatically re-registered.

  This is not a valid argument against WLS vs Other similar products
that do the same thing though...

> No one but an idiot would register
> across one registrar to another to WLS a domain name. So that means that WLS
> really only works with the Registrar that currently has the Domain
> published.
>
> So then what WLS is, is a specific set of processes to allow the booking of
> futures based pre-payments by the registrar. This can only be a mechanism to
> allow the forced keeping of domains with that same registrar.

  Again not a valid argument here either.  WLS is only one of several already
operating products that essentially do what WLS can and is supposed to do.

>
>
> Now take a bigger picture. The Registrar also operates a Domains-for-Sale
> company; so that division registers as a WLS client against all the cool
> names and if there is any screwup or lapse, then the same Registrar
> ultimately winds up stealing the names from its clients. Only there is no
> need to pass actual money in this manner so the Registrar just books all the
> cool names it wants and says "Get Sc^&*d" to all its customers.
>
> This is what WLS is all about.

  I agree only IF  WLS being "Sanctioned" by ICANN
as a "Best Practice" facility or "Standard"...

>
>
> >
> >
> > 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
> >

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: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 20:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Once more into the breach....WLS spin by proponents

Hello,

In a last ditch attempt to influence the outcome of the ICANN Board's
decision on WLS, we've got the post by Susan Crawford at:

http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?wls;3D41DE6D00000358

All of Susan's arguments have been made ad nauseum in the past, and had
been responded to. It seems that they simply want to get in "the last
word" (or "the last spin"), as a desperate last move to put lipstick on
the pig named WLS.

Louis Touton, in his analysis of April 17th, at:

http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-17apr02.htm

gave us the ground rules, "it is my judgment that the Board should not
seek to decide how to deal with this request without invoking the
formal consensus development processes currently established within
ICANN." The overwhelming consensus is that WLS be denied, as an
unwanted intrusion on an existing competitive marketplace that is
thriving at the registrar level. ICANN's mission is to foster
competition, and that has been its major success, as it has stated on
more than one occasion. The double-speak that WLS will actually
increase competition is simply preposterous. I and many others would
echo Susan's statement that "The Board's obligation is to take steps
that maximally favor competition." Rejection of the monopolistic WLS
definitely accomplishes that goal. Indeed, it is the Board's only
choice, given that acceptance of WLS will cause a challenge by affected
Registrars, as I noted at:

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

a challenge which the registrars would win easily, since ICANN can not
show consensus for this new policy affecting domain name allocations.
Indeed, more powerfully, not only can ICANN not show consensus FOR WLS,
there is consensus AGAINST WLS.

The fact of the matter is that there is intrinsic demand for the domain
names themselves, not WLS as a mechanism to acquire them. We currently
have numerous means to acquire those names, and WLS seeks to monopolize
that marketplace not because it is a "better offering", but instead
because it gets first dibs on all the names, leaving everyone else with
the table scraps that no one else wanted. If NameWinner had done such a
deal with Verisign, instead of SnapNames, we'd see the exact opposite
spin by SnapNames, I'm sure, that it's anti-competitive, etc.

I find it amusing that proponents of WLS refused to take my "Cookie
Challenge", posted on the DNSO GA list multiple times, to answer the
questions posed at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg02855.html

among other places, regarding the "Effects Test" of WLS. However, Susan
has taken up the "Cheese Challenge". Where do I send the cheese, to go
along with her whine? :)

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: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 21:26:57 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Once more into the breach....WLS spin by proponents

Sheesh that post from Ms Crawford is full of so much B.S. that I am
absolutely amazed that she can make those statements.

I wonder if she would make them under oath.

Friday, July 26, 2002, 8:42:49 PM, George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,

> In a last ditch attempt to influence the outcome of the ICANN Board's
> decision on WLS, we've got the post by Susan Crawford at:

> http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?wls;3D41DE6D00000358

> All of Susan's arguments have been made ad nauseum in the past, and had
> been responded to. It seems that they simply want to get in "the last
> word" (or "the last spin"), as a desperate last move to put lipstick on
> the pig named WLS.

> Louis Touton, in his analysis of April 17th, at:

> http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-17apr02.htm

> gave us the ground rules, "it is my judgment that the Board should not
> seek to decide how to deal with this request without invoking the
> formal consensus development processes currently established within
> ICANN." The overwhelming consensus is that WLS be denied, as an
> unwanted intrusion on an existing competitive marketplace that is
> thriving at the registrar level. ICANN's mission is to foster
> competition, and that has been its major success, as it has stated on
> more than one occasion. The double-speak that WLS will actually
> increase competition is simply preposterous. I and many others would
> echo Susan's statement that "The Board's obligation is to take steps
> that maximally favor competition." Rejection of the monopolistic WLS
> definitely accomplishes that goal. Indeed, it is the Board's only
> choice, given that acceptance of WLS will cause a challenge by affected
> Registrars, as I noted at:

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

> a challenge which the registrars would win easily, since ICANN can not
> show consensus for this new policy affecting domain name allocations.
> Indeed, more powerfully, not only can ICANN not show consensus FOR WLS,
> there is consensus AGAINST WLS.

> The fact of the matter is that there is intrinsic demand for the domain
> names themselves, not WLS as a mechanism to acquire them. We currently
> have numerous means to acquire those names, and WLS seeks to monopolize
> that marketplace not because it is a "better offering", but instead
> because it gets first dibs on all the names, leaving everyone else with
> the table scraps that no one else wanted. If NameWinner had done such a
> deal with Verisign, instead of SnapNames, we'd see the exact opposite
> spin by SnapNames, I'm sure, that it's anti-competitive, etc.

> I find it amusing that proponents of WLS refused to take my "Cookie
> Challenge", posted on the DNSO GA list multiple times, to answer the
> questions posed at:

> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg02855.html

> among other places, regarding the "Effects Test" of WLS. However, Susan
> has taken up the "Cheese Challenge". Where do I send the cheese, to go
> along with her whine? :)

> 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

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 21:36:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS Final Vote of Names Council, in their minutes

Hello,

Just for the record, they posted the draft of the minutes at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00395.html

(of course, there needs to be a vote to adopt the minutes at the next
meeting, but the record for the vote itself seems correct, as anyone
who listened to the MP3 recording of it can attest)

The important part is:

"Philip Sheppard moved for a vote of adoption for the report as a
whole.

15 voted in favour, 3 voted against (the members of the gTLD
constituency) 1 abstention (IPC). Greg Ruth was absent, no proxy given.
The motion carried with a greater than two-thirds majority making this
a consensus policy recommendation of the DNSO. This reflected the vote
within the task force itself on the recommendations.
Decision 3: Report adopted"

As a consensus policy, the implications are clear. A decision to not
follow the consensus policy would expose that decision to a challenge
as noted at:

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

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: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 00:53:01 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Names Policy Development Process 

A document entitled "Names Policy Development Process Assistance Group: 
Preliminary Framework" has been released by the ERC's select Task Force:  
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/npdpag-report-26jul02.htm

This task force consists of Rita A. Rodin (chair), Marilyn Cade, Guillermo 
Carey, Caroline Chicoine, Bret Fausett, Jeff Neuman, Bruce Tonkin and Philip 
Sheppard -- basically the same bunch of folks that have provided us with such 
wonderful policy guidance so far.  

We have already had the benefit of Working Group D... unfortunately, no one 
on the Council ever gave its recommendations anything more than lip service, 
and of course they have completely eliminated all working groups.

We have already had the benefit of "Rules of Procedures for the DNSO Names 
Council" to govern policy development processes within task forces and 
working groups... unfortunately, no one on the Council even remembers these 
procedures, or what they're supposed to do when they convene a task force -- 
they only write these rules to prove that they are busy doing something.

And now we have the benefit of even more empty words regarding "timelines" 
and "opportunities for public input" by the very same people that have spent 
10 months in a transfers task force accomplishing nothing related to 
transfers, that won't publish a timeline, and that have used every means at 
their disposal to keep interested parties out of their closed task forces.  

This document is just another sham to continue to foist these illegitimate, 
non-productive, and hardly-attended task forces upon us.   The phrase 
"working group" isn't even mentioned.  Open, bottom-up, and fully transparent 
is being replaced by closed, top-down, and non-transparent task force 
teleconferences where minutes aren't even posted.

The only thing this group is accomplishing is preservation of the horribly 
failed status quo... and of course, they create the pretense that ICANN is 
actually involved in evolutionary reform so that the DoC will be pacified.  

Same old pretty-sounding words that we've all heard before, written with such 
a high level of generality as to be totally useless -- just like the current 
Names Council, and equally not surprising as almost every committee member is 
or was a Council rep.

Garbage in, Garbage out.

- --
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: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 01:07:22 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] What deal was made?

The only explanation that I can find to account for VeriSign's decision to 
reverse its position on the budget is within the context of the NSI 
Concurrent Agreement:

1. Approval of Variable Accreditation Fee. For so long as Registrar is an 
ICANN-Accredited Registrar in the .com, .net or .org TLD, Registrar will 
approve the variable accreditation fee, as provided in Subsection 3.9.2 of 
the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, for so long as Registrar's portion 
does not exceed $2,000,000 annually.

http://www.icann.org/registrars/nsi-concurrent-agreement-17may01.htm

But surely Bruce Beckwith with aware of this provision before he declared his 
intent not to support this year's proposed budget...  
- --
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: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 00:56:32 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

Danny and all assembly members,

  Yes it was very interesting reading in light of recent events, and
ongoing events.  I hope you took the liberty of passing this
response of yours on to the DOC/NTIA.  ??

[email-masked] wrote:

> A document entitled "Names Policy Development Process Assistance Group:
> Preliminary Framework" has been released by the ERC's select Task Force:
> http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/npdpag-report-26jul02.htm
>
> This task force consists of Rita A. Rodin (chair), Marilyn Cade, Guillermo
> Carey, Caroline Chicoine, Bret Fausett, Jeff Neuman, Bruce Tonkin and Philip
> Sheppard -- basically the same bunch of folks that have provided us with such
> wonderful policy guidance so far.
>
> We have already had the benefit of Working Group D... unfortunately, no one
> on the Council ever gave its recommendations anything more than lip service,
> and of course they have completely eliminated all working groups.
>
> We have already had the benefit of "Rules of Procedures for the DNSO Names
> Council" to govern policy development processes within task forces and
> working groups... unfortunately, no one on the Council even remembers these
> procedures, or what they're supposed to do when they convene a task force --
> they only write these rules to prove that they are busy doing something.
>
> And now we have the benefit of even more empty words regarding "timelines"
> and "opportunities for public input" by the very same people that have spent
> 10 months in a transfers task force accomplishing nothing related to
> transfers, that won't publish a timeline, and that have used every means at
> their disposal to keep interested parties out of their closed task forces.
>
> This document is just another sham to continue to foist these illegitimate,
> non-productive, and hardly-attended task forces upon us.   The phrase
> "working group" isn't even mentioned.  Open, bottom-up, and fully transparent
> is being replaced by closed, top-down, and non-transparent task force
> teleconferences where minutes aren't even posted.
>
> The only thing this group is accomplishing is preservation of the horribly
> failed status quo... and of course, they create the pretense that ICANN is
> actually involved in evolutionary reform so that the DoC will be pacified.
>
> Same old pretty-sounding words that we've all heard before, written with such
> a high level of generality as to be totally useless -- just like the current
> Names Council, and equally not surprising as almost every committee member is
> or was a Council rep.
>
> Garbage in, Garbage out.
>
> --
> 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

- --
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: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 08:28:14 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

I still think that ICANN's biggest political and technical hurdle to leap is
really what to do about other ROOT's.This may seem like a simple business
question but it has far reaching ramifications that stretch throughout the
entirety of what we know as the Internet.

Further - it needs to be noted that ICANN can develop whatever it wants
internally but if its processes are too oppressive and too painful to deal
with, then these other ROOTS will certainly gain significant numbers of
ICANN's existing customers and that is a serious issue to deal with.

ICANN's trying to stop the operations of these other ROOTS is equally
problematic since it ***will*** result in law suits and like restraining
orders against ICANN, its officers and its agents (the Registrars and the
ASO members) from prohibiting these other roots from functioning. Restraint
of Trade is a pretty easy claim to prove here under today's circumstances.

As a simple example, I allege that it is possible that ICANN is playing
antitrust by locking out other Internet Standards Processes and
organizations. This is simply demonstrated by that IANA will not issue a
system port except to an organization that has an IETF RFC number. So no one
from ITU or any of the other standards orgs can submit anything for the
issuance of a System Port on the Global Internet unless they play ICANN's
PSO Game and that is clearly anti-trust since ICANN does not own the
Internet. Which simply says, that without the IETF/IESG/IAB processes in
place, nothing gets codified as an Internet Standard and personally that is
the largest load of BS anywhere.

- --

Another concept here is that the Domain Owners are more the friend of the
Registrars than ICANN is, and if you don't believe me, then ask Verisign how
many bodies to GoDaddy they lost because GoDaddy is more friendly to end
users at the wallet level. And most of the Domain Registrars don't realize
this yet because we spend so much time arguing about personal sh*t and not
the goals of the group.

Todd Glassey

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

> Danny and all assembly members,
>
>   Yes it was very interesting reading in light of recent events, and
> ongoing events.  I hope you took the liberty of passing this
> response of yours on to the DOC/NTIA.  ??
>
> [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > A document entitled "Names Policy Development Process Assistance Group:
> > Preliminary Framework" has been released by the ERC's select Task Force:
> > http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/npdpag-report-26jul02.htm
> >
> > This task force consists of Rita A. Rodin (chair), Marilyn Cade,
Guillermo
> > Carey, Caroline Chicoine, Bret Fausett, Jeff Neuman, Bruce Tonkin and
Philip
> > Sheppard -- basically the same bunch of folks that have provided us with
such
> > wonderful policy guidance so far.
> >
> > We have already had the benefit of Working Group D... unfortunately, no
one
> > on the Council ever gave its recommendations anything more than lip
service,
> > and of course they have completely eliminated all working groups.
> >
> > We have already had the benefit of "Rules of Procedures for the DNSO
Names
> > Council" to govern policy development processes within task forces and
> > working groups... unfortunately, no one on the Council even remembers
these
> > procedures, or what they're supposed to do when they convene a task
force --
> > they only write these rules to prove that they are busy doing something.
> >
> > And now we have the benefit of even more empty words regarding
"timelines"
> > and "opportunities for public input" by the very same people that have
spent
> > 10 months in a transfers task force accomplishing nothing related to
> > transfers, that won't publish a timeline, and that have used every means
at
> > their disposal to keep interested parties out of their closed task
forces.
> >
> > This document is just another sham to continue to foist these
illegitimate,
> > non-productive, and hardly-attended task forces upon us.   The phrase
> > "working group" isn't even mentioned.  Open, bottom-up, and fully
transparent
> > is being replaced by closed, top-down, and non-transparent task force
> > teleconferences where minutes aren't even posted.
> >
> > The only thing this group is accomplishing is preservation of the
horribly
> > failed status quo... and of course, they create the pretense that ICANN
is
> > actually involved in evolutionary reform so that the DoC will be
pacified.
> >
> > Same old pretty-sounding words that we've all heard before, written with
such
> > a high level of generality as to be totally useless -- just like the
current
> > Names Council, and equally not surprising as almost every committee
member is
> > or was a Council rep.
> >
> > Garbage in, Garbage out.
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> 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
>

- --
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 #1342
*************************