Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1352
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, August 2 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1352

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

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:50:49 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Names Council Resolution on Reform

Dear Vint, Stuart, and Alejandro:

I wish to express my concern regarding the ill-considered Names Council 
Resolution on Reform submitted today.

The Blueprint on Reform called for a 16-member Council and thoughtfully 
recognized that the size of the Council may change from time to time as new 
provisional constituencies become voting constituencies.  In calling for 
three representatives per constituency the Council has failed to bear in mind 
that others are soon to join the mix, groups such as:  

Academic and public entities 
Individual domain name holders 
Consumer and civil society organizations 
Small business users 

Each one of these provisional entities will require a seat at the table and 
representation in equal measure.  Under the Council's plan we would begin 
with eighteen members representing the current constituencies, another three 
voting members elected by the NomCom, and one non-voting liaison appointed by 
the GAC -- that's already 22 members, and yet we have to make room for 
perhaps 12-15 more members as the provisional constituencies are added.   
This is a patently unworkable situation (as we can all appreciate that overly 
large Boards or Councils can quickly become cumbersome and unwieldy tools 
that will not serve our organization's need for efficiency).

With regard to the issue of geographic and cultural diversity, as long as the 
constituencies remain international, and as long as constituencies continue 
to elect their representatives, such representation will remain international 
in character and will reflect the cultural diversity of the community.
  
With regard to the final points in the Council resolution:

1.  Workload:  The workload of a council member may readily be shared with 
non-Council members thus enhancing involvement at the constituency membership 
level.  Council's argument does not justify the need for an additional 
constituency voting representative.
2.  Participation:  Participation in Task Forces need not be limited only to 
Council representatives (opening up the process to others would enhance the 
Council's claim to truly having a bottom-up process), and candidly, Task 
Forces have already proven themselves to be a failed policy-development model.
3.  Outreach:  Outreach to multiple regions may be accomplished in a number 
of ways, including the Business Constituency's own rapporteur approach in 
which not all such rapporteurs are Council members -- additional 
representation cannot be justified by this argument either. 

The ERC's vision of a reasonably small Steering Council has merit (if you 
actually believe that such a Council actually engenders some type of "added 
value", a highly debatable point).  

In my estimation, the Council has not thought in terms of the best interest 
of the Corporation, choosing instead to advance their own constituent 
self-interest.  I encourage you to reject their recommendation.

- --
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, 1 Aug 2002 21:50:44 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

On 2002-07-31 14:33:21 -0400, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

>It is rarely the case that it *is* the registrar's fault.  It is 
>FREQUENTLY the case that the registrant *blames* the registrar 
>when the registrant fails to properly renew the domain name.  I 
>hear these sob stories several times a week.

The more interesting question is if this means that the registrar 
made it too difficult for the registrant to renew the domain name...

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.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: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 13:38:53 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] Please could Neulevel respond re: unexplained "unlocking" of names under investigation

cc's trimmed.

At 11:01 AM 01/08/02 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:

>You seem to think that they have some obligation to
>give you the details of any transaction that you
>decide to inquire about.

NeuLevel has characterized their process as fair
and equitable for all internet users. Richard
Henderson (and if you can't tell the difference
between him and Jeff Williams, I pity you) has
pointed out examples where their processes seem
to have been unfair or inequitable. Now if I
find out that something I buy, or something I
try to buy, is not as advertised, then you're
damn right I'd ask the advertiser for an
explanation. And you're also right, they can
tell me to shove it, or they can ignore me,
as they seem to be doing, or they can do any
number of things, some of them hopefully more
of a win-win for both parties.

And if they tell me to shove it, or ignore
me, or don't come up with what I think is at
least a decent explanation, then I am free
to claim that they are guilty of false
advertising and perhaps take further action,
perhaps via government authorities, perhaps
by court action, perhaps a class action suit.

In this case, I suppose that could include
going to ICANN about it, but it appears
that that is a waste of time. What is it
now Richard, three months and counting? -g

- --
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, 1 Aug 2002 18:06:05 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Text of Letter to U.S. Commerce Dept. on ICANN Reform  

Excerpt from Washington Post:

The operators of the world's five largest Internet domains today asked the 
U.S. Commerce Department to scale back the powers of the body that manages 
the Internet's global addressing system. The three companies that manage 
dot-com, dot-net, dot-org, dot-de and dot-uk told Commerce Department 
Undersecretary Nancy Victory that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names 
and Numbers (ICANN) should be reined in. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31870-2002Aug1.html

The full text of the letter:
http://www.centr.org/news/CENTR-ICANN-statement.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 15:17:46 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Text of Letter to U.S. Commerce Dept. on ICANN Reform

As usual, Cochetti is full of it.

Verisign is angry that ICANN likely will not approve WLS, and won't
let them arbitrarily raise prices at the registry level.

Verisign wants a return to the days of NSI's unregulated monopoly,
something they probably thought they were buying when they purchased
NSI, and then got a rude awakening as that monopoly has been chipped
away from them.

I rarely ever agree with Stuart Lynn, but his quote in this article
was spot on.

Thursday, August 01, 2002, 3:06:05 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Excerpt from Washington Post:

> The operators of the world's five largest Internet domains today asked the 
> U.S. Commerce Department to scale back the powers of the body that manages 
> the Internet's global addressing system. The three companies that manage 
> dot-com, dot-net, dot-org, dot-de and dot-uk told Commerce Department 
> Undersecretary Nancy Victory that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names 
> and Numbers (ICANN) should be reined in. 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31870-2002Aug1.html

> The full text of the letter:
> http://www.centr.org/news/CENTR-ICANN-statement.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
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: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 23:34:01 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, at 21:50 [=GMT+0200], Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-07-31 14:33:21 -0400, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
>
> >It is rarely the case that it *is* the registrar's fault.  It is
> >FREQUENTLY the case that the registrant *blames* the registrar
> >when the registrant fails to properly renew the domain name.  I
> >hear these sob stories several times a week.
>
> The more interesting question is if this means that the registrar
> made it too difficult for the registrant to renew the domain name...

Assuming that they are good businessmen and therefore trying to keep their
customers, it is very unlikely that registrars make it hard for people to
renew their domains.

- --
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, 2 Aug 2002 01:41:06 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Text of Letter to U.S. Commerce Dept. on ICANN Reform  

On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, at 18:06 [=GMT-0400], [email-masked] wrote:

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31870-2002Aug1.html

Marvelous quote, Lynn dismissing the joint protest of Verisign and the
European ccTLDs registries against the blueprint:

*"A registry by definition has a monopoly, so they all have a common
*interest in preserving individual monopolistic practices, so they
*don't want to be accountable to anybody."

Is by definition the registry of registries (to wit ICANN) exempt
from this interest in preserving monopolies? If so, why?

- --
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, 1 Aug 2002 16:45:57 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Text of Letter to U.S. Commerce Dept. on ICANN Reform

Thursday, August 01, 2002, 4:41:06 PM, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, at 18:06 [=GMT-0400], [email-masked] wrote:

>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31870-2002Aug1.html

> Marvelous quote, Lynn dismissing the joint protest of Verisign and the
> European ccTLDs registries against the blueprint:

> *"A registry by definition has a monopoly, so they all have a common
> *interest in preserving individual monopolistic practices, so they
> *don't want to be accountable to anybody."

> Is by definition the registry of registries (to wit ICANN) exempt
> from this interest in preserving monopolies? If so, why?

Oh please, Marc.  I know you are an alt.root advocate, but you are one
of the most reasonable ones, surely you can recognize that Lynn was
spot on right in this article, and that the reason for this "protest"
is clearly because the registries want to attack ICANN for doing the
right thing with regard to the WLS.

I know you hate ICANN, and I understand why, but come on, I know you
can be reasonable, and you have to see that here.

- -- 
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, 2 Aug 2002 12:29:38 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Text of Letter to U.S. Commerce Dept. on ICANN Reform

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Text of Letter to U.S. Commerce Dept. on ICANN Reform

         Stuart said
> > *"A registry by definition has a monopoly, so they all have a common
> > *interest in preserving individual monopolistic practices, so they
> > *don't want to be accountable to anybody."

WXW said

> Oh please, Marc.  I know you are an alt.root advocate, but you are one
> of the most reasonable ones, surely you can recognize that Lynn was
> spot on right in this article, and that the reason for this "protest"
> is clearly because the registries want to attack ICANN for doing the
> right thing with regard to the WLS.

Of course, as often the case in relation to ccTLDs, the staff reaction is
not accurate.

ccTLDs are managers of a natural monopoly, but -say it after me - they are
accountable to their local internet communities.

Anyone who wants to know what that means in practice can join InternetNZ, as
an example, and see it in action. Or in Australia, Canada, and many other
places.

Recognising that there are cctlds where the level of that accountability can
be improved, the ccTLD movement has an active outreach programme, conducted
in part with the outreach and training programme of the RIRs.

We are working also to develop a programme jointly with the GAC to have
regional meetings.

None of this is about preserving monopolistic practices. Its about serving
the local and global internet communities, consistent with RFC 1591 and the
duty which cctld managers feel to those communities.

What we are not going to do is allow ICANN to substitute that for a duty to
ICANN.

Regards

Peter Dengate Thrush
Senior Vice Chair
Asia Pacific TLD Association

- --
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, 01 Aug 2002 20:46:18 -0400
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Text of Letter to U.S. Commerce Dept. on ICANN Reform

ummmmmmm,
Does this alll have to be about hidden meanings?

is it not possible to agree that ICANN needs to be reined in without
worrying about the motivation of the people saying so?

I mean...I do not represent a registrar or registry or any other R-word.
Yet I most definitely opposed WLS.  by this logic I should be agreeing
with Stuart Lynnn and disagreeing with Verisign.  Dont I have any choice
in the matter?
I think I do.  As a matter of public record...I have agreed with Karl
Auerbach just about every time he spoke about ICANN.
I think ICANN has gone way beyond what their original mandate is. And I
think Stuart Lynn is tryign to take it even further, at the same time
removing any last vestiges of checks/balances and accountability that we
fought so hard to get included in the original contract.

William X Walsh wrote:
> 
> Thursday, August 01, 2002, 4:41:06 PM, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, at 18:06 [=GMT-0400], [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31870-2002Aug1.html
> 
> > Marvelous quote, Lynn dismissing the joint protest of Verisign and the
> > European ccTLDs registries against the blueprint:
> 
> > *"A registry by definition has a monopoly, so they all have a common
> > *interest in preserving individual monopolistic practices, so they
> > *don't want to be accountable to anybody."
> 
> > Is by definition the registry of registries (to wit ICANN) exempt
> > from this interest in preserving monopolies? If so, why?
> 
> Oh please, Marc.  I know you are an alt.root advocate, but you are one
> of the most reasonable ones, surely you can recognize that Lynn was
> spot on right in this article, and that the reason for this "protest"
> is clearly because the registries want to attack ICANN for doing the
> right thing with regard to the WLS.
> 
> I know you hate ICANN, and I understand why, but come on, I know you
> can be reasonable, and you have to see that here.
> 
> --
> 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

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 20:54:27 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] The ERC Scam

When the ERC released its first Status Report, we were told that a task force 
of representatives of the broad ICANN community would be established to 
recommend the details of the policy-development process.  In theory this 
sounded somewhat akin to the idea of bottom-up, yet as it turns out 
(according to today's NC teleconference) "a Driver from the Top-down" is 
quite clearly dictating the course of the recommendations that will be 
forthcoming.  

Bruce Tomkin noted:  "One of the things that I found interesting between the 
first call that we had and the second call that we had... in the first call 
we're already talking about membership in Task Forces and how we would try to 
widen the membership and allow different groups to participate in the Task 
Force process.  Then, in the second call, there was really a shift which 
seemed to be coming from the Top down, more-or-less saying that more of the 
work of the Task Forces should be done within the Names Council itself.  And 
then the issue was... well then, it doesn't matter about the membership of 
task forces... you could have a task force of one member if you like because 
the representation issues were dealt with at the Names Council itself." 

From Phil Sheppard we also learned that Joe Sims is now part of the ERC 
process and has offered his own "suggestions" to the group.

At a glance it appears that having chosen the most malleable folks they could 
find, the ERC is now proceeding to "guide" their efforts dictating everything 
from report format to proposed content.  This will then be passed off as 
recommendations from the community.   On a different front, the exact same 
process is being repeated within the ALOC.  Denise Michel is drafting her own 
document and has already arbitrarily rejected language endorsed by a number 
of At-Large committee members.  

We are looking at a well-orchestrated deception.

- --
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, 01 Aug 2002 20:43:17 -0400
From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

Danny,

thanks for a most thoughtful note. While there is plainly room for
a good deal of debate on all these topics, your analysis comports with 
the discussions I'm familiar with in the reform committee's work and
illustrate the need for pragmatic accommodation and compromise. I 
sincerely hope that all the interested parties will recognize that
and choose to work constructively within the framework that is agreed
upon in the Shanghai meeting.

Vint

At 02:50 PM 8/1/2002 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>Dear Vint, Stuart, and Alejandro:
>
>I wish to express my concern regarding the ill-considered Names Council 
>Resolution on Reform submitted today.
>
>The Blueprint on Reform called for a 16-member Council and thoughtfully 
>recognized that the size of the Council may change from time to time as new 
>provisional constituencies become voting constituencies.  In calling for 
>three representatives per constituency the Council has failed to bear in mind 
>that others are soon to join the mix, groups such as:  
>
>Academic and public entities 
>Individual domain name holders 
>Consumer and civil society organizations 
>Small business users 
>
>Each one of these provisional entities will require a seat at the table and 
>representation in equal measure.  Under the Council's plan we would begin 
>with eighteen members representing the current constituencies, another three 
>voting members elected by the NomCom, and one non-voting liaison appointed by 
>the GAC -- that's already 22 members, and yet we have to make room for 
>perhaps 12-15 more members as the provisional constituencies are added.   
>This is a patently unworkable situation (as we can all appreciate that overly 
>large Boards or Councils can quickly become cumbersome and unwieldy tools 
>that will not serve our organization's need for efficiency).
>
>With regard to the issue of geographic and cultural diversity, as long as the 
>constituencies remain international, and as long as constituencies continue 
>to elect their representatives, such representation will remain international 
>in character and will reflect the cultural diversity of the community.
>  
>With regard to the final points in the Council resolution:
>
>1.  Workload:  The workload of a council member may readily be shared with 
>non-Council members thus enhancing involvement at the constituency membership 
>level.  Council's argument does not justify the need for an additional 
>constituency voting representative.
>2.  Participation:  Participation in Task Forces need not be limited only to 
>Council representatives (opening up the process to others would enhance the 
>Council's claim to truly having a bottom-up process), and candidly, Task 
>Forces have already proven themselves to be a failed policy-development model.
>3.  Outreach:  Outreach to multiple regions may be accomplished in a number 
>of ways, including the Business Constituency's own rapporteur approach in 
>which not all such rapporteurs are Council members -- additional 
>representation cannot be justified by this argument either. 
>
>The ERC's vision of a reasonably small Steering Council has merit (if you 
>actually believe that such a Council actually engenders some type of "added 
>value", a highly debatable point).  
>
>In my estimation, the Council has not thought in terms of the best interest 
>of the Corporation, choosing instead to advance their own constituent 
>self-interest.  I encourage you to reject their recommendation.

Vint Cerf
SVP Architecture & Technology
WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
703 886 0047 fax

- --
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, 01 Aug 2002 20:01:54 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] Please could Neulevel respond re: unexplained "unlocking" of names under investigation

Gary, Richard and all assembly members,

 Despite Gary's continuing inane comments of a personal nature towards
myself regarding issues, I support Richard's insisting on getting
reasonable and direct honest answers to his very good questions.

  Stakeholders have  RIGHT to these answers as Nuelevel is under
contract to a corp., ICANN that is a public service corp.

Gary Osbourne wrote:

> cc's trimmed.
>
> At 11:01 AM 01/08/02 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:
>
> >You seem to think that they have some obligation to
> >give you the details of any transaction that you
> >decide to inquire about.
>
> NeuLevel has characterized their process as fair
> and equitable for all internet users. Richard
> Henderson (and if you can't tell the difference
> between him and Jeff Williams, I pity you) has
> pointed out examples where their processes seem
> to have been unfair or inequitable. Now if I
> find out that something I buy, or something I
> try to buy, is not as advertised, then you're
> damn right I'd ask the advertiser for an
> explanation. And you're also right, they can
> tell me to shove it, or they can ignore me,
> as they seem to be doing, or they can do any
> number of things, some of them hopefully more
> of a win-win for both parties.
>
> And if they tell me to shove it, or ignore
> me, or don't come up with what I think is at
> least a decent explanation, then I am free
> to claim that they are guilty of false
> advertising and perhaps take further action,
> perhaps via government authorities, perhaps
> by court action, perhaps a class action suit.
>
> In this case, I suppose that could include
> going to ICANN about it, but it appears
> that that is a waste of time. What is it
> now Richard, three months and counting? -g
>
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 20:24:14 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Text of Letter to U.S. Commerce Dept. on ICANN Reform

Marc and all assembly members or other interested parties,

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, at 18:06 [=GMT-0400], [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31870-2002Aug1.html
>
> Marvelous quote, Lynn dismissing the joint protest of Verisign and the
> European ccTLDs registries against the blueprint:
>
> *"A registry by definition has a monopoly, so they all have a common
> *interest in preserving individual monopolistic practices, so they
> *don't want to be accountable to anybody."
>
> Is by definition the registry of registries (to wit ICANN) exempt
> from this interest in preserving monopolies? If so, why?

  Now there's a good question!  Well done here Marc. The  ICANN
Bod and staff made it's bed, now it has to lie in it, or change the
sheets, so to speak.  To me Lynn was the pot calling the Kettel
black...  So he flip-flops yet again...  When will that guy learn?!

>
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 21:37:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The ERC Scam

On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> We are looking at a well-orchestrated deception.

yes icann has been that way from the beggining.  deception is it's stock
and trade.

- --
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, 01 Aug 2002 20:38:18 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Text of Letter to U.S. Commerce Dept. on ICANN Reform

Dan and all assembly members,

  Dan, you hit again on a very good point IMHO.  Well done!
Indeed either there are some hidden meanings in this article,
and the Letter as well, or Lynn in particular did not
articulate himself very well...

  What I liked was the actual title of the article:
"Internet Registry Giants Want ICANN Heeled"  >;)
Makes ICANN sound like a rabid dog...

Dan Steinberg wrote:

> ummmmmmm,
> Does this alll have to be about hidden meanings?
>
> is it not possible to agree that ICANN needs to be reined in without
> worrying about the motivation of the people saying so?
>
> I mean...I do not represent a registrar or registry or any other R-word.
> Yet I most definitely opposed WLS.  by this logic I should be agreeing
> with Stuart Lynnn and disagreeing with Verisign.  Dont I have any choice
> in the matter?
> I think I do.  As a matter of public record...I have agreed with Karl
> Auerbach just about every time he spoke about ICANN.
> I think ICANN has gone way beyond what their original mandate is. And I
> think Stuart Lynn is tryign to take it even further, at the same time
> removing any last vestiges of checks/balances and accountability that we
> fought so hard to get included in the original contract.
>
> William X Walsh wrote:
> >
> > Thursday, August 01, 2002, 4:41:06 PM, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, at 18:06 [=GMT-0400], [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31870-2002Aug1.html
> >
> > > Marvelous quote, Lynn dismissing the joint protest of Verisign and the
> > > European ccTLDs registries against the blueprint:
> >
> > > *"A registry by definition has a monopoly, so they all have a common
> > > *interest in preserving individual monopolistic practices, so they
> > > *don't want to be accountable to anybody."
> >
> > > Is by definition the registry of registries (to wit ICANN) exempt
> > > from this interest in preserving monopolies? If so, why?
> >
> > Oh please, Marc.  I know you are an alt.root advocate, but you are one
> > of the most reasonable ones, surely you can recognize that Lynn was
> > spot on right in this article, and that the reason for this "protest"
> > is clearly because the registries want to attack ICANN for doing the
> > right thing with regard to the WLS.
> >
> > I know you hate ICANN, and I understand why, but come on, I know you
> > can be reasonable, and you have to see that here.
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> Dan Steinberg
>
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin            phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec         fax:   (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 20:54:38 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Text of Letter to U.S. Commerce Dept. on ICANN Reform

Thursday, August 1, 2002, 7:29:38 PM, Peter Dengate Thrush <[email-masked]> wrote:
PDT> ----- Original Message -----
PDT> From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
PDT> To: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
PDT> Cc: <[email-masked]>
PDT> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 11:45 AM
PDT> Subject: Re: [ga] Text of Letter to U.S. Commerce Dept. on ICANN Reform

PDT>          Stuart said
>> > *"A registry by definition has a monopoly, so they all have a common
>> > *interest in preserving individual monopolistic practices, so they
>> > *don't want to be accountable to anybody."

PDT> WXW said

>> Oh please, Marc.  I know you are an alt.root advocate, but you are one
>> of the most reasonable ones, surely you can recognize that Lynn was
>> spot on right in this article, and that the reason for this "protest"
>> is clearly because the registries want to attack ICANN for doing the
>> right thing with regard to the WLS.

PDT> Of course, as often the case in relation to ccTLDs, the staff reaction is
PDT> not accurate.

PDT> ccTLDs are managers of a natural monopoly, but -say it after me - they are
PDT> accountable to their local internet communities.

PDT> Anyone who wants to know what that means in practice can join InternetNZ, as
PDT> an example, and see it in action. Or in Australia, Canada, and many other
PDT> places.

PDT> Recognising that there are cctlds where the level of that accountability can
PDT> be improved, the ccTLD movement has an active outreach programme, conducted
PDT> in part with the outreach and training programme of the RIRs.

PDT> We are working also to develop a programme jointly with the GAC to have
PDT> regional meetings.

PDT> None of this is about preserving monopolistic practices. Its about serving
PDT> the local and global internet communities, consistent with RFC 1591 and the
PDT> duty which cctld managers feel to those communities.

PDT> What we are not going to do is allow ICANN to substitute that for a duty to
PDT> ICANN.

PDT> Regards

PDT> Peter Dengate Thrush
PDT> Senior Vice Chair
PDT> Asia Pacific TLD Association

Therefore, VeriSign's participation in (monopoly of) the news article
(which could be realistically called a VeriSign press release) is
misplaced and out of order, isn't it. The goals and aspirations of the
ccTLDs are markedly different than those of VeriSign, aren't they.

The staff comments were in recognition of the obvious sour grapes
"ploy." VeriSign and Roger Cochetti are sour grapes and the ccTLDs are
being "used and exploited" to support their very "dissimilar" cause.

I am very surprised that you and the other ccTLD folks don't see that
they are being "exploited" and have not spoken-up on that issue.

Your cause is not in question here. Please take head of what is in
question and don't allow yourselves to be guilty by the association.
Demark yourselves of the parasite who is using your cause for their
very dissimilar gain.

Please don't allow your cause to be abused and stolen from you.  Stand
on your own feet.  You don't need VeriSign in your corner and it
doesn't belong there, anyway.

Thanks,

- ---
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, 1 Aug 2002 18:55:16 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Text of Letter to U.S. Commerce Dept. on ICANN Reform

Thursday, August 01, 2002, 5:46:18 PM, Dan Steinberg wrote:

> ummmmmmm,
> Does this alll have to be about hidden meanings?

> is it not possible to agree that ICANN needs to be reined in without
> worrying about the motivation of the people saying so?

No, it isn't in this case, because the things these parties want moved
outside of ICANN's reach are the very things that SHOULD be in ICANN's
reach. They are not advocating for the changes we are, and we should
not support them simply because they are attacking ICANN, but because
we support the reasons behind the criticisms.

There are areas where ICANN needs to be reigned in. NONE of these
parties are talking about any of those areas, and no where in the
letter in question are those areas even mentioned.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1352
*************************