Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1353
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, August 2 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1353

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

Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 20:52:14 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

Vint and all assembly members,

  As this is my 5th post today to this forum I will try to be brief
yet to the point.

  Vint, frankly you know full well that the "Blueprint" is no and
was not agreed upon by the stakeholders and is as such
just another disguise to disenfranchise stakeholders/users
from participation directly.  Therefore what you suggest below
for Shangi will be yet another disaster and a complete sham.

  So Vint, like Stuart, you are not very good at deception.
Of course we all know that given Worldcom's recent
fraudulent business and financial practices...

  If ICANN, including yourself Vint want to be transparent,
open, and gain some creditability you cannot dictate through
closed or hand picked committee's a path for reform.  That
is not reform but continueing a closed process...  Stop it!

vinton g. cerf wrote:

> 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

- --
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, 2 Aug 2002 00:05:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Jeff Williams wrote:

>   Vint, frankly you know full well that the "Blueprint" is no and
> was not agreed upon by the stakeholders and is as such
> just another disguise to disenfranchise stakeholders/users
> from participation directly.  Therefore what you suggest below
> for Shangi will be yet another disaster and a complete sham.

the chiness will love the blueprint - they won't participate - but they'll
love the blueprint.

regards
joe

- --
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 22:16:06 -0700
From: "M. Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

Many thanks, Danny, for your comments. I think in many ways they 
coincide with some of the ERC's thinking behind the Blueprint.

Stuart

At 2:50 PM -0400 8/1/02, [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.

- -- 

__________________
Stuart Lynn
President and CEO
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 310-823-9358
Fax: 310-823-8649
Email: [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, 01 Aug 2002 22:33:29 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Text of Letter to U.S. Commerce Dept. on ICANN Reform

Of course as usual Peter has underspoken in his polite diplomatic way.
He of course is a Gentlemen unlike my rapscallion self.

Unlike commercialized dots, ccTLDs, to the great  majority maintain an integrity
that is lacking elsewhere.
In general, they run and manage their ccTLDs in the interest of their particular
country with sincere dedication and an effort to benefit the local community.
For the most part they sacrifice glory, money and prestige in order to protect
their user community.  They care with unbridled principal about their
dotcommoners and work diligently to insure security, accessibility and
reliability.

My hat is off to these modern day soldiers in pursuit of better things for
people.  Their work in education and training is second to none.  People like
Peter and Thuy are making a difference in lives.  I believe it is high time they
rocked the monopolistic tendencies of ICANN.  Please support them in every
regard. I for one am proud to have a job that allows me to be of assistance to a
ccTLD.

Sincerely,
Eric

Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:

> ----- 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

- --
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, 02 Aug 2002 00:30:43 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

At 11:34 PM 01/08/02 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:

>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.

That is assuming that the renewal fee is the same if it is
the original registrant or someone else. If the renewal fee
is higher for a new registrant (as is likely to happen with
WLS), then there is a built in incentive to be less than
helpful to the original registrant. It is normally a Very
Good Thing to keep your existing customers, but if new ones
pay better, though only if you jettison the current ones,
well, screw the current customer. I gotta make a living. -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: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 04:33:06 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

Hello Stuart,

When discussions are limited to too few people, even well-meaning experts can 
make bad decisions... this was evident in the NC resolution on reform, and 
remains evident in the way that the ERC is handling the implementation 
aspects of the Blueprint.

When too few are assigned to a task, and when outreach is limited only to an 
immediate circle of associates, faulty decision-making can well result.  
There is an old adage:  "Our enemies come nearer the truth in the opinions 
they form of us than we do in our opinion of ourselves".  Relying on feedback 
only from those that share your own views is the surest way to become trapped 
in a web of self-deception and to deny the truth that is evident to others.

I am one who believes that the Board and Staff have become so insular that 
they no longer recognize the consensus of the community all around them.  The 
views of Management appear to be increasingly at odds with the views of a 
broad range of stakeholders, and this results in an incessant barrage of 
criticism as charges are repeatedly levied that ICANN is just not listening.  
In response to this criticism, ICANN becomes even more entrenched and more 
arrogant in the manner by which it responds to its critics.  Rather than 
attempting to satisfy all parties to the greatest measure possible, one gets 
the impression that ICANN seeks instead to p*ss them all off equally.

Action has to be taken to break this vicious cycle.

Clearly, a solution cannot be imposed top-down on the Community.  Nor can 
ICANN pretend that the Community is embracing the current reform initiative.  
It is not.  There are still far too many issues regarding representation, 
accountability, legitimacy, predictability, transparency, and 
policy-development which remain unresolved.  By now, it must be apparent to 
you that not even one group has come out in support of the ERC package thus 
far, not the Names Council, not the General Assembly, not the RIRs, not the 
gTLDs, not the ccTLDs, not the US Congress, and not the At-Large community.  

No one wants a package shoved down their throats.

To resolve this impasse, allow me to propose a possible solution  -- let 
every relevant organization appoint representatives to attend a roundtable 
negotiating session to hammer out a solution that will be binding on all 
parties, a process akin to that used in labor/management disputes.   Invite 
representatives from the Department of Commerce to observe the proceedings.  
As each group has already formulated its positions, it is now time to 
collectively craft the requisite compromises.  You give a little, they give a 
little, and eventually a solution will be reached that has the prospect of 
being palatable to most.  

Reach a working consensus in a representive microcosm.  This is, after all, a 
consensus-based organization, and we will respect the decisions reached by 
our representatives.

- --
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 09:33:27 +0100
From: "Jon Lawrence" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

Which would be a fair assumption if, and only if, the WLS was set up such
that the registrar that had the name originally would also get the name
if deleted and re-registered to the WLS subscriber.

I'm pretty sure that is not the case.

jon

>-- Original Message --
>Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 00:30:43 -0700
>To: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
>From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [ga] Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names
>Cc: [email-masked]
>
>
>At 11:34 PM 01/08/02 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>That is assuming that the renewal fee is the same if it is
>the original registrant or someone else. If the renewal fee
>is higher for a new registrant (as is likely to happen with
>WLS), then there is a built in incentive to be less than
>helpful to the original registrant. It is normally a Very
>Good Thing to keep your existing customers, but if new ones
>pay better, though only if you jettison the current ones,
>well, screw the current customer. I gotta make a living. -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
>

- --
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, 02 Aug 2002 02:32:03 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] WLS

There is only two things for certain, a monopolistic WLS is unwarranted
and wrong.

There are a few matters of prescription and of proscription that are
warranted;
On the prescription;

1. a 75, 60, 30, 15 and 5 day warning to the registrant.
2. A right to chose who such notices go out to.

On the proscription;

1. a registrar may not take or in any way capitalize on an expiration.
2. a registrar may in no way hinder or obviscate a reregistration or the
fact of expiration.

Follow those principles and free market forces and dumbies will create a
level playing field.  Protecting the consumer anymore than that creates
and artifice.  Allowing more power to a registrar creates an ever
sinking monopolistic hell hole.
We don't need no stinking WLS we simply need a free market.

Sincerely,
Eric

- --
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, 02 Aug 2002 02:33:30 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

Danny this is far too charitable!
Eric

[email-masked] wrote:

> Hello Stuart,
>
> When discussions are limited to too few people, even well-meaning experts can
> make bad decisions... this was evident in the NC resolution on reform, and
> remains evident in the way that the ERC is handling the implementation
> aspects of the Blueprint.
>
> When too few are assigned to a task, and when outreach is limited only to an
> immediate circle of associates, faulty decision-making can well result.
> There is an old adage:  "Our enemies come nearer the truth in the opinions
> they form of us than we do in our opinion of ourselves".  Relying on feedback
> only from those that share your own views is the surest way to become trapped
> in a web of self-deception and to deny the truth that is evident to others.
>
> I am one who believes that the Board and Staff have become so insular that
> they no longer recognize the consensus of the community all around them.  The
> views of Management appear to be increasingly at odds with the views of a
> broad range of stakeholders, and this results in an incessant barrage of
> criticism as charges are repeatedly levied that ICANN is just not listening.
> In response to this criticism, ICANN becomes even more entrenched and more
> arrogant in the manner by which it responds to its critics.  Rather than
> attempting to satisfy all parties to the greatest measure possible, one gets
> the impression that ICANN seeks instead to p*ss them all off equally.
>
> Action has to be taken to break this vicious cycle.
>
> Clearly, a solution cannot be imposed top-down on the Community.  Nor can
> ICANN pretend that the Community is embracing the current reform initiative.
> It is not.  There are still far too many issues regarding representation,
> accountability, legitimacy, predictability, transparency, and
> policy-development which remain unresolved.  By now, it must be apparent to
> you that not even one group has come out in support of the ERC package thus
> far, not the Names Council, not the General Assembly, not the RIRs, not the
> gTLDs, not the ccTLDs, not the US Congress, and not the At-Large community.
>
> No one wants a package shoved down their throats.
>
> To resolve this impasse, allow me to propose a possible solution  -- let
> every relevant organization appoint representatives to attend a roundtable
> negotiating session to hammer out a solution that will be binding on all
> parties, a process akin to that used in labor/management disputes.   Invite
> representatives from the Department of Commerce to observe the proceedings.
> As each group has already formulated its positions, it is now time to
> collectively craft the requisite compromises.  You give a little, they give a
> little, and eventually a solution will be reached that has the prospect of
> being palatable to most.
>
> Reach a working consensus in a representive microcosm.  This is, after all, a
> consensus-based organization, and we will respect the decisions reached by
> our representatives.
>
> --
> 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, 2 Aug 2002 02:48:55 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] Please could Neulevel respond re: unexplained "unlocking" of names under investigation

Friday, August 02, 2002, 1:56:52 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:

> Of course, much more important from the public's point of view, is the
> integrity of the Neulevel registry - which stipulated as a condition of
> registration that .biz names should only be bought with the intent of doing
> business through them, NOT with the intent of selling them on at a profit.

Which was a stupid decision in the first place, but even taking it as
is, it simply says PRIMARY purpose.  How do you want to go about
ascertaining primary purpose, Richard?

It's damn near impossible.

And I think you are setting a very unreasonable standard for Neulevel
to meet.  And you want them to apply a standard to registrants that is
unreasonable and unfair.

I Will continue to challenge your demands of them and to point out why
they are unreasonable.

- -- 
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 12:56:36 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ERC Report: More on Policy-Making.

   The Evolution and Reform Committee has published its [1]First 
   Interim Implementation Report. Among other topics, this report 
   includes comments on the ERC's ideas on ICANN's future 
   policy-making process, and some comments on the [2]Names Policy 
   Development Process Assistance Group's Preliminary Framework.

   The process suggested by the ERC roughly looks like this: First, 
   everyone interested makes their views known in a fair and open 
   process. Then, the ERC hopes, the actual influence of the ideas 
   advanced - in the Policy Council's subsequent discussions - will 
   depend on their merit. Those participating in the process (i.e., 
   the members of the Council) should then strive to reach consensus; 
   if consensus can't be reached, the reasons should be documented. 
   The Council would finally forward its documented recommendation to 
   the Board, which would take final action.

   These ideas sound nice in theory - however, I have some doubt 
   whether the actual Policy Councils will be able to deliver on 
   these requirements.

   More precisely, if the Councils act according to the 
   "responsibility for the greater good" theories the ERC has 
   articulated in earlier publications, this may work out. However, 
   this approach is apparently not compatible with the [3]desires of 
   the current DNSO constituencies. Further, the ERC itself also 
   seems to deviate from it in the paper at hand - after all, it 
   discusses the case that a consensus solution can't be found 
   because of the unreasonable or irrational refusal by one or more 
   parties to seek consensus. (But maybe I'm just getting their 
   definition of "consensus" wrong. Consensus among what group?)

   If, on the other hand, the Councils continue to consist of a 
   limited number of representatives (not "delegates"!) from 
   individual stakeholder groups who exclusively look at their own 
   (and their strategic allies') interests, outside opinions and 
   arguments will hardly be judged by their merit, but rather by the 
   question whether or not they are considered helpful for this or 
   that fraction's position.

   There is another point in which this paper crucially deviates from 
   the ERC's earlier thinking: Some of the earlier documents tried to 
   make it less important to be on the Names Council. The  
   policy-making approach outlined in this document makes it even  
   more important. That way, the question what constituencies can be  
   added how becomes once more crucial. Even though the blueprint's  
   construction of the Council attempts to make adding new  
   constituencies a less political issue than it is today (by  
   mandating a certain basic balance between provider and user  
   constituencies), the NC's current thinking clearly indicates that  
   the established constituencies would have to go a fairly long way  
   until this goal could actually be accomplished (assuming that  
   consent by existing constituencies is desirable).

References

   1. http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/first-implementation-report-01aug02.htm
   2. http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/npdpag-report-26jul02.htm
   3. http://log.does-not-exist.org/archive-0208.html#02080121351028230514

- -- 
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: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:16:13 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Text of Letter to U.S. Commerce Dept. on ICANN Reform

Don't forget that Registry Operators are oligopolies....(?? Thanks for
that MF...)

The problem with employing lobbyists on a full time basis is that they
tend to spend a lot of time catering to every last need of the companies
that they work for. The problem with that approach is that a lot of time
they simply tend to cast empty statements like this.

New note for the ERC: ICANN needs a lot fewer lobbyists running around,
less meetings and less time theorizing on the possible end of the IP
universe. Conversely they need a lot more people that don't run around
at these meetings instead devoting their time to the real operation of
the DNS. Narrower scope? Only if that means fewer self-important people
trying to stay employed....;)

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> Of William X Walsh
> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 6:18 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [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
> 

- --
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, 02 Aug 2002 10:45:55 -0700
From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

At 09:33 AM 02/08/02 +0100, Jon Lawrence wrote:

>Which would be a fair assumption if, and only if,
>the WLS was set up such that the registrar that
>had the name originally would also get the name
>if deleted and re-registered to the WLS subscriber.

I'm unclear as to what you are saying. What I am
saying is that if the name doesn't expire at all,
then the current registrant continues to pay for
it and the VeriSign registry makes approximately
$6. If OTOH it expires and there is a WLS on it,
then VeriSign registry makes $6+. Now VeriSign
registry makes that money whether it expires or
not, but if good names don't expire there is no
market.

See Ben Edelman's Tina's Free Live Webcam study:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/renewals/

And there are numerous other examples he doesn't
cite. Picking up a dropped name that has never
been used isn't what these folks are doing. They
want names which already had functional websites.

Now sure some folks can walk away from their
functional sites intentionally and let the name
drop. A Christian rock band in my area, Vancouver,
Canada, did just that after they disbanded. They
then find out that it has been picked up and is
being used as a porn site. The prior owner says
if he knew that was going to happen, he never
would have let the name drop. I suspect this
would be true of many who just walk away from
a name. But if they did know and did renew then
that lessens the pool of dropping names. Better
to keep them in the dark.

And sure some folks can mess up and not renew
their name through their own error, and it is
hard to work up much sympathy for them. But
as has been pointed out, was the error entirely
their fault or could the registrar/registry
have been more helpful? Well, we're talking
about VeriSign here, who sent out deceptive
notices regarding domain name renewals to
registrants who weren't even their own
customers, including false renewal dates.
Who was that designed and intended to be
helpful for, VeriSign or the consumer? Yet
we are supposed to believe that in this
instance VeriSign will act ethically. I
don't buy it. -g

> >-- Original Message --
> >Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 00:30:43 -0700
> >To: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
> >From: Gary Osbourne <[email-masked]>
> >Subject: Re: [ga] Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names
> >Cc: [email-masked]
> >
> >
> >At 11:34 PM 01/08/02 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> >
> >>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.
> >
> >That is assuming that the renewal fee is the same if it is
> >the original registrant or someone else. If the renewal fee
> >is higher for a new registrant (as is likely to happen with
> >WLS), then there is a built in incentive to be less than
> >helpful to the original registrant. It is normally a Very
> >Good Thing to keep your existing customers, but if new ones
> >pay better, though only if you jettison the current ones,
> >well, screw the current customer. I gotta make a living. -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
> >
>
>
>--
>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, 2 Aug 2002 11:11:40 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

If the Chinese are half as smart as I usually give them credit for, what
they will do is insist on two roots and an interoperability treaty. The
point is that ICANN has no right to insist that there be only one root, or
only one Internet. And what they (the Chinese Government) will probably tell
the world is that China has an Information Control policy that is political
rather than technical and that it must operate its own root to satisfy this.
If it is really smart, China might also replicate the entirety of IPv4 space
by simply implementing a set of Gateway NAT Bridges in and out of China.

Poof - with this type of technology you get instant independent namespace
and IP address space as well. And its so simple to implement relative to the
existing practices and technologies, that its almost laughable...

Now the world and the techies will jump up and down screaming gross
oppression, and that they have a"right" (and I assume we will soon hear
Cisco screaming about this too)... but the fact of the matter is that this
is the ONLY way any country can impose eBorders, and that is something
despite ICANN, that each and every country has the right and need to do.

The problem is that ICANN and its PSO's have made it almost
impossible,without this type of compartmentalization, of having a judicial
boundary for anything electronic... And this is based in no restraint or
understanding of the global effects of new protocols on the Internet, and
the ISP's and long haul carriers just blindly laughing and routing them.

If The Internet was truly compartmentalized then Napster would not have been
anything close to the problem it was since it could be addressed this way.
Same diff with Kiddy Porn sites, and other illegal offerings.

Todd Glassey
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
To: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Nancy J. Victory" <[email-masked]>;
"Don Evans" <[email-masked]>; "cathy Handley" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform

>
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> >   Vint, frankly you know full well that the "Blueprint" is no and
> > was not agreed upon by the stakeholders and is as such
> > just another disguise to disenfranchise stakeholders/users
> > from participation directly.  Therefore what you suggest below
> > for Shangi will be yet another disaster and a complete sham.
>
> the chiness will love the blueprint - they won't participate - but they'll
> love the blueprint.
>
> regards
> joe
>
> --
> 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 #1353
*************************