Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1365
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, August 9 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1365

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

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:55:36 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

Leah - you talk about what could be and what should be, I was merely
making observations based on what is.

(Is that five for me today?)

                       -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 L. Gallegos
> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 12:21 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8 Aug 2002, at 10:11, Don Brown wrote:
> 
> > Competition, innovation, progress, no monopoly and lower 
> registration 
> > costs for consumers, to name a few . . .
> 
> If there were thousands of TLDs, or even hundreds, the monopoly issue 
> would be put to rest.  The market would take care of pricing.  In the 
> case of VRSG, it is an issue simply because it was the only game in 
> town for so long that every commercial enterprise was forced 
> to register 
> in that registry, providing a scenario where it was easy to gauge 
> consumers.  Adding "registrars" to the mix forced price 
> reductions, yes. 
>  However, it is still a monopoly in the sense that VRSG still 
> fixes the 
> registry fee.  
> 
> Had there been a hundred gTLDs added early on, consumers would 
> have been registering in many regsitries and NSI would have had to 
> compete in a fair market.  Every registry is a monoply, but 
> that is no 
> different from every insurance company being a monopoly.  If 
> you don't 
> like the practices, terms and conditions or policies of one company, 
> choose another.  
> 
> A great many of the issues driving people crazy today could go away 
> with hundreds of TLDs being made available in the USG root.  I doubt 
> we will see it because the IP interests will do all they can 
> to prevent it.  
> 
> There is nothing wrong with having a single registrar for a 
> regsitry if there 
> are many registries - small, large and in-between.  As with 
> the problems 
> surrounding ICANN's elimination of the at-large, the 
> artificial scarcity of 
> TLDs prevents the public's having a choice in the most basic areas of 
> the internet - the DNS.
> 
> All the talk of confusion raised by having a multitude of 
> TLDs is also 
> pure FUD.  People have become accustomed to changing area codes 
> constantly, as well as having to use more digits in phone 
> numbers, dial 
> around codes, etc.  The public would become accustomed to a variety 
> of TLD extensions in the same manner and more companies would 
> spring up to index them.  
> 
> Registries could succeed or fail.  People and companies would then 
> have to make changes just as they do when they move and change 
> phone numbers or an area code is changed forcing companies and 
> individuals to adjust.  It's a pain, but we all do it.  A 
> worse scenario 
> would be to not allow new area codes and have an artificial 
> scarcity of 
> phone numbers.  I see no difference with the lack of TLDs in the USG 
> root, especially when there are thousands of TLDs already in 
> existence, 
> many of which actively accept registrations.  It's no longer an 
> experiment in the sense that it can be done.  It's been done. 
>  So what is 
> ICANN's excuse?
> 
> Leah
> 
> > 
> > Thursday, August 8, 2002, 8:35:21 AM, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin 
> > <[email-masked]> wrote: JFCJM> yes. but what is 
> the need for 
> > a registrar (as understood today)? JFCJM> jfc
> > 
> > JFCJM> On 13:05 08/08/02, Ross Wm. Rader said:
> > >>Any number of them. The very existence of registrars in this 
> > >>namespace is, in itself, an innovation. The myriad of business 
> > >>models they employ represent an innovation, the 
> technology that they 
> > >>use, in many cases, represent an innovation...the list 
> does go one, 
> > >>but the specifics are well-documented and not really 
> important to this discussion.
> > >>                       -rwr
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----
> > 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-full" 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: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 10:05:09 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

Dear Leah,

There are hundreds.  They are called ccTLDs and all we need do is develop them
for the benefit of the countries they represent. Easy ;-] I appreciate all of the
inclusives.  And support them at every turn.
Properly run ccTLDs fulfil the same function with an accreditation toward a
specific community based upon a geographic truth.  We are growing not shrinking
and this is good.

Eric

"L. Gallegos" wrote:

> On 8 Aug 2002, at 10:11, Don Brown wrote:
>
> > Competition, innovation, progress, no monopoly and lower registration
> > costs for consumers, to name a few . . .
>
> If there were thousands of TLDs, or even hundreds, the monopoly issue
> would be put to rest.  The market would take care of pricing.  In the
> case of VRSG, it is an issue simply because it was the only game in
> town for so long that every commercial enterprise was forced to register
> in that registry, providing a scenario where it was easy to gauge
> consumers.  Adding "registrars" to the mix forced price reductions, yes.
>  However, it is still a monopoly in the sense that VRSG still fixes the
> registry fee.
>
> Had there been a hundred gTLDs added early on, consumers would
> have been registering in many regsitries and NSI would have had to
> compete in a fair market.  Every registry is a monoply, but that is no
> different from every insurance company being a monopoly.  If you don't
> like the practices, terms and conditions or policies of one company,
> choose another.
>
> A great many of the issues driving people crazy today could go away
> with hundreds of TLDs being made available in the USG root.  I doubt
> we will see it because the IP interests will do all they can to prevent it.
>
> There is nothing wrong with having a single registrar for a regsitry if there
> are many registries - small, large and in-between.  As with the problems
> surrounding ICANN's elimination of the at-large, the artificial scarcity of
> TLDs prevents the public's having a choice in the most basic areas of
> the internet - the DNS.
>
> All the talk of confusion raised by having a multitude of TLDs is also
> pure FUD.  People have become accustomed to changing area codes
> constantly, as well as having to use more digits in phone numbers, dial
> around codes, etc.  The public would become accustomed to a variety
> of TLD extensions in the same manner and more companies would
> spring up to index them.
>
> Registries could succeed or fail.  People and companies would then
> have to make changes just as they do when they move and change
> phone numbers or an area code is changed forcing companies and
> individuals to adjust.  It's a pain, but we all do it.  A worse scenario
> would be to not allow new area codes and have an artificial scarcity of
> phone numbers.  I see no difference with the lack of TLDs in the USG
> root, especially when there are thousands of TLDs already in existence,
> many of which actively accept registrations.  It's no longer an
> experiment in the sense that it can be done.  It's been done.  So what is
> ICANN's excuse?
>
> Leah
>
> >
> > Thursday, August 8, 2002, 8:35:21 AM, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin
> > <[email-masked]> wrote: JFCJM> yes. but what is the need for a
> > registrar (as understood today)? JFCJM> jfc
> >
> > JFCJM> On 13:05 08/08/02, Ross Wm. Rader said:
> > >>Any number of them. The very existence of registrars in this namespace
> > >>is, in itself, an innovation. The myriad of business models they employ
> > >>represent an innovation, the technology that they use, in many cases,
> > >>represent an innovation...the list does go one, but the specifics are
> > >>well-documented and not really important to this discussion.
> > >>                       -rwr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----
> > 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-full" 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: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 20:32:26 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

- --=======60C66FD=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-2A651489; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

At 18:21 08/08/02, L. Gallegos wrote:
>Adding "registrars" to the mix forced price reductions, yes.

no. The registry kept $6, but with more customers paid by the inverstors in 
the registrars which tried to "buy market shares" at discounted rates. Once 
thay had no more money VRSN purchased them back. And all the unecessary DNs 
purchased because cheaper are not renewed.
jfc

- --=======60C66FD=======--

- --
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, 8 Aug 2002 12:16:42 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

Thursday, August 08, 2002, 11:32:26 AM, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:

> At 18:21 08/08/02, L. Gallegos wrote:
>>Adding "registrars" to the mix forced price reductions, yes.

> no. The registry kept $6, but with more customers paid by the inverstors in 
> the registrars which tried to "buy market shares" at discounted rates. Once 
> thay had no more money VRSN purchased them back. And all the unecessary DNs 
> purchased because cheaper are not renewed.
> jfc

VRSN purchases two registrars whose market shares were relatively
insignificant, Jefsey.

Your point does not stand up to even the most cursory examination.

VRSN bought 2 registrars, Jefsey.

Stick to facts.

- -- 
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, 08 Aug 2002 18:21:01 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Cyber-Federalist

Danny and all assembly members,

  Yes Hans Klien posted this article all over the place.  I am glad he
did, BTW...  I thought the article was pretty good although bit
short of specific facts to support the headline...  None the less
it was essentially accurate given my 4 years of experience in
dealing and participating in the "ICANN Experiment"...

[email-masked] wrote:

> Issue #14 of Cyber-Federalist has been published
> http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/cyber-fed/Number_14.html
>
> The issue is entitled "Creating the Illusion of Legitimacy"
>
> Excerpt:  In its words and its actions, ICANN seems to employ participative,
> consensus-based, bottom-up procedures.  The problem is that these words and
> actions often serve only to create an illusion of legitimacy.  The reality is
> much different.
>
> --
> 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, 08 Aug 2002 18:34:23 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

WXW and all assembly members,

  This is a fairly good settlement.  It also shows plainly that Verisign
is in the deception business when it suits them and they think that
they can get away with it.  But they didn't get away this time
and had to make some restitution to the stakeholders.

  The settlement also points up how poor a job the ICANN
BoD and staff are doing in policing their registrar's and
enforcing their Registrar contracts...

  I would strongly suggest that the ICANN Staff in particular
start earning their huge salaries and get of their duff's and do
their jobs ASAP of more of this sort of thing will occur..

William X Walsh wrote:

> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020807/phw049_1.html
> BulkRegister.com and Verisign reached a confidential settlement in the
> lawsuit.
>
> Wednesday, August 07, 2002, 1:16:42 PM, George Kirikos wrote:
>
> > Hello,
>
> > --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >> Do you have any data to back up your conclusion about the cost of the
> >> network?
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >> > While the thick registry is certainly convenient from a
> >> > management point
> >> > of view, the cost to the network likely exceeds the value of the
> >> > savings...
>
> > There are more "costs" than simply the operational costs incurred in
> > running the centralized WHOIS. One should also consider other things.
> > One example, for instance, is the abuse that can occur when such a
> > valuable database is centralized in hands that seem to have no problem
> > "testing the limits" of the law, as per the current FTC investigation
> > into the trade practises of a company we all know and love....
>
> > The costs to consumers, registrars, and other market participants due
> > to those practises are non-trivial, albeit difficult to measure.
>
> > Perhaps your colleagues can tell us exactly how many of those "renewal
> > notices" were mailed out, to assist us in estimating those costs. If 5%
> > of individuals got confused, had to call their registrars (incurring
> > increased support costs) for 10 minutes of support, at $20/hour, we can
> > provide some educated guesses as to some of the costs. Perhaps another
> > 0.1 percent had their business disrupted (email, webservices, etc.) for
> > 10 days, at a cost of $100/day, adding even more to the true "costs".
>
> > 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

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, 09 Aug 2002 16:16:55 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

At 10:11 a.m. 8/08/2002 -0500, Don Brown wrote:
>Competition, innovation, progress, no monopoly and lower registration
>costs for consumers, to name a few . . .

No monopoly?  The registry is a monopoly by nature.
Leah is right.
All  registrars, agents and resellers in .com .net and .org do is cloak and 
share the monopoly.
A useful function, I concede.

- --Joop

- --
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, 9 Aug 2002 11:56:12 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WHOIS: Statistical note.

   One reader of the [1]WHOIS Task Force's report sent me a private
   comment about the statitsical considerations section of that report,
   pointing out that there is no reason to suppose that the statistics of
   a self-selected sample can be modeled by a Gaussion or any other
   random model. This is, of course, true: The fact that the respondents
   were [2]self-selected can add any systematic bias, and we don't know
   what that bias looks like. However, we know that this bias makes the
   results worse. Thus, error margins derived from a random model
   underestimate the errors. Put differently: If you couldn't derive a
   conclusion assuming the sample is random, you certainly can't derive
   it when the results come from a self-selected sample.

References

   1. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/whoisTF/
   2. http://www.capitalcentury.com/1935.html

- -- 
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, 09 Aug 2002 03:55:21 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS: Statistical note.

There are clearly two types of statistics;
One to find out facts and data.
And the other to help you prove a position.
Clearly these statistics were gathered to help prove a predetermined
position.

Eric

Thomas Roessler wrote:

>    One reader of the [1]WHOIS Task Force's report sent me a private
>    comment about the statitsical considerations section of that report,
>    pointing out that there is no reason to suppose that the statistics of
>    a self-selected sample can be modeled by a Gaussion or any other
>    random model. This is, of course, true: The fact that the respondents
>    were [2]self-selected can add any systematic bias, and we don't know
>    what that bias looks like. However, we know that this bias makes the
>    results worse. Thus, error margins derived from a random model
>    underestimate the errors. Put differently: If you couldn't derive a
>    conclusion assuming the sample is random, you certainly can't derive
>    it when the results come from a self-selected sample.
>
> References
>
>    1. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/whoisTF/
>    2. http://www.capitalcentury.com/1935.html
>
> --
> 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

- --
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, 09 Aug 2002 11:14:42 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

L. Gallegos wrote:
>
>If there were thousands of TLDs, or even hundreds, the monopoly issue
>would be put to rest.  The market would take care of pricing.  In the
>case of VRSG, it is an issue simply because it was the only game in
>town for so long that every commercial enterprise was forced to register
>in that registry, providing a scenario where it was easy to gauge
>consumers.  Adding "registrars" to the mix forced price reductions, yes.
>  However, it is still a monopoly in the sense that VRSG still fixes the
>registry fee.
>
>Had there been a hundred gTLDs added early on, consumers would
>have been registering in many regsitries and NSI would have had to
>compete in a fair market.  Every registry is a monoply, but that is no
>different from every insurance company being a monopoly.  If you don't
>like the practices, terms and conditions or policies of one company,
>choose another.
>

I agree completely.
Although the change of Registry might not as easy as change insurance 
company, the essence of the matter is to provide more competition at the 
Registry level, and this can only be done by creating more TLDs.

The great expectation I personally had with the creation of ICANN was to 
have a body that could have managed the process of expansion of the domain 
name space at the same time creating the conditions for more competition, 
and hopefully more advantages for the consumers.
The situation few years later is before us.
Only seven gTLDs have been added, some of which "restricted", and therefore 
not in a position to cotribute to the competition, most of which with 
similar business models, dispute resolution mechanisms, and what else.
Moreover, the largest TLD in the market has been allowed to keep its 
Registry and Registrar capability, which is a limitation of the competition 
from other Registrars in the same TLD.

You all know that I am opposed to alt.roots, but I confess I had hoped, at 
one point in time, that at least they could constitute a threat to move 
ICANN towards a more prompt delegation of new Registries.
It did not work either.

Now the issue of creation of new TLDs is not even in ICANN's agenda. If I 
remember correctly, the process for the initial 7 should have given 
information to improve the process and do it better the second time.
Just like the AtLarge elections.

Danny rightfully complaints about participation. I am personally still 
unable to find sufficient motivation to drop other things that I am doing to 
make time for ICANN things, but the subjects where I would like to see more 
focus are exactly these two: new TLDs and participation by the 
non-corporate-controlled interests.

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.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, 9 Aug 2002 14:52:15 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Call for nominations to elect an ICANN Board Director

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked]
[ Please forward this announcement to the Constitiency mailling lists
 in order to reach all DNSO General Assembly members.]

09 August 2002

Dear DNSO Members,

The Names Council is pleased to announce a call for nominations
to elect an ICANN Board Director by the DNSO.

In our effort to reach as many interested parties as possible
we may unavoidably send you more than one copy. Please accept our
apologies for this.

The process to elect an ICANN Board Director is comprised of two parts:
   1. Nomination and endorsements of candidates to the ICANN Board
      position by the General Assembly of the DNSO
   2. Vote by the Names Council to select the ICANN Board Director

The first part lasts 6 weeks:
   a. 3 weeks for nominations (and acceptances),
      Friday 09 August to Friday 30 August 2002
  b. 3 weeks for endorsements
       Friday 30 August to Friday 20 September 2002

The second part lasts for a few days.

Please watch carrefully the deadlines, the reference time is given in UTC
(Universal Coordinated Time), for all other places see
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

Summary:

During the next weeks the DNSO will select its ICANN Board Director
in replacement of Alejandro Pisanty, whose term expires on 30 September
2001.

The new elected Director will serve for a 3 year term.

With regard to geographic diversity rules, the candidates for
election in 2002 shall be citizens from any of 3 regions:
Africa, Asia-Pacific or Europe.

The ICANN Board Director election by the DNSO is described in the
attached main document (and its annexes), which are posted on the website:
   1. Main document: Description of the election process in 2002
      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2002.DNSO-ICANN-election.html
   2. Procedure for nominations, acceptances and endorsements by the GA,
      and calendar for 2002:
      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2002.DNSO-ICANN-nomination-proc.html
   3. A list of nominations, acceptances and their endorsements
      will be updated daily at:
      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2002.DNSO-ICANN-nominees.html
   4. The NC voting procedure:
      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2002.DNSO-ICANN-voting-proc.html

The Names Council and the Secretariat are grateful to the GA Watchdog
Committee, which in 2002 includes Roberto Gaetano, Harald Alvestrand,
Kent Crispin, Dany Vandromme, Alexander Svensson and Izumi Aizu.
The GA Watchdog Committee will police the nomination and endorsement
processes to help detect and cure any instances of fraudulent activity
in connection with the nomination and endorsement processes.

DNSO Secretariat

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/elections/2002.DNSO-ICANN-election.html ]

     ICANN/DNSO

                 DNSO election of ICANN Board member in 2002

     ICANN Bylaws

     ICANN's Bylaws stipulate that once a year the DNSO elects its member of
     the ICANN Board and set forth some additional conditions related to
     eligibility and geographic diversity.

          ARTICLE V, Section 9 (b) and (c)

          (b) Prior to October 1 of each year beginning in the year
          2002, each Supporting Organization entitled to select a
          Director (other than an Original Director selected by the
          Supporting Organization under Section 2 of this Article)
          shall (i) make its selection according to the procedures
          specified by Article VI (including Articles VI-A, VI-B, and
          VI-C), and (ii) give the Board and the Secretary of the
          Corporation at least fifteen days written notice of that
          selection.

          (c) The regular term of office of a Director shall be three
          (3) years, [...]

          ARTICLE VI, Section 4

          No person shall serve simultaneously as (i) a member of any
          Supporting Organization Council or other body that is
          directly responsible for the selection of Directors by that
          Supporting Organization and (ii) a Director or a member of
          any other Supporting Organization Council. If a member of any
          such Supporting Organization Council or such other body
          accepts a nomination to be considered to serve on the Board,
          such member shall not, following such acceptance, participate
          in any discussion of, or vote by, such Supporting
          Organization Council or other body relating to the selection
          of Directors by such Council or other body.

          ARTICLE VI-B, Section 2 (e)

          (e) The NC shall forward to the Board, from among those
          persons nominated by the GA, its selection(s) for the
          Director(s) to fill any open Board position(s) reserved for
          the DNSO. Any such selection(s) must have the affirmative
          votes of at least one-half (1/2) of all the members of the
          NC. At any given time, no two Directors serving on the Board
          selected by the NC shall be citizens of the same country or
          of countries located in the same Geographic Region.

     Geographic diversity rule applied to year 2002 election

     The current ICANN Board comprises three Directors elected by the DNSO:
       1. Alejandro Pisanty (Mexico; Latin America/Caribbean Islands region)
          (three year term, expires 2002)
       2. Jonathan Cohen (Canada; North America region) (three years term,
          expires 2003)
       3. Amadeu Abril I Abril (Spain; Europe region) (three year term,
          expires 2004)

     The tenure of Alejandro Pisanty from Latin America/Caribbean region
     ends on 30 September 2002. With regard to geographic diversity rules,
     the candidates for election in 2002 shall be citizens from any of 3
     regions:

          - Africa region
          - Asia and Pacific region
          - Latin America/Caribbean

     Procedures for nomination of candidates to the ICANN Board position by
     the General Assembly of the DNSO and a timetable

     On 1 August 2002 the NC has resolved that the next ICANN Board director
     election will take place in August/September 2002.

          11. DNSO Board election.
          Alejandro Pisanty's tenure ends in September. The NC is urged
          to propose candidates for the election which will take place in
          September with a view to the new member being in place for
October.
          The Secretariat will make the formal call.

     The Names Council has resolved to use the same procedures for
     nomination, acceptance of nomination and endorsement as the ones used
     last year.

     The Secretariat has determined the following calendar for nominations:
       1. Candidates for year 2002 election may be nominated between the 9
          August and 30 August 2002 (3 weeks).
       2. Any nominee can express his/her acceptance or declination from the
          time he is nominated, until 3 hours after closing the nomination
          period.
       3. In order to be considered for the ICANN Board selection a nominee
          must have the support of, at least, 10 members of the General
          Assembly of the DNSO. The endorsement will be received between the
          30 August and 20 September 2002 (3 weeks).

     The detailed nomination procedures adapted for the ICANN Board election
     in 2002 are in
     http://www.dnso.org/elections/2002.DNSO-ICANN-nomination-proc.html .

     A list of nominations, acceptances and their endorsements will be
     permanently updated in
     http://www.dnso.org/elections/2002.DNSO-ICANN-nominees.html.

     Procedures for vote to be used by the Names Council to select the ICANN
     Board Director and a timetable

     The Names Council has resolved to use a Convention-Style voting
     procedure to select the ICANN Board Director.

     The Names Council vote will take place between 20 September and 27
     September 2002, by e-mail and during a serie of NC teleconferences.

     It is expected that the results will be announced no later than 28
     September 2002. The written notification of the selection result will
     be sent to the ICANN Board and published on the DNSO web site at the
     same date.

     The Convention-Stype procedure for the ICANN Board election in 2002 is
     in http://www.dnso.org/elections/2002.DNSO-ICANN-voting-proc.html.

     Full record of votes

     During the Names Council electronic vote between 20 September and 27
     September 2002 the public archiving of the [email-masked] list will
     be temporarily stoped.

     The full record of votes (who voted for whom) will be discosed at the
     end of selection process, after the acceptance of the results by the
     ICANN Board. The [email-masked] list will be reopen at the same time.

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

                      Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

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

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

Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 15:05:10 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Nomination Procedure for nominating ICANN Board Director candidates

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked]
[ Please forward this announcement to the Constitiency mailling lists
 in order to reach all DNSO General Assembly members.]

cf. http://www.dnso.org/elections/2002.DNSO-ICANN-nomination-proc.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

                 DNSO election of ICANN Board member in 2002

Procedures for nomination of candidates to the ICANN Board position by the
General Assembly of the DNSO and a timetable in 2002

  1. Nomination of candidates for the ICANN Board position:

          Open: Friday 09 August 2002 at 12:00 UTC (14:00 Paris)
          Closed: Friday 30 August 2002 at 12:00 UTC (14:00 Paris) (3 weeks)

          For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

  2. Any member of the GA may make a nomination.

          A member of the GA shall be any natural person who at the
          time of the nomination (or endorsement as set forth below)
          is:

             * subscribed to the GA-ga or GA-announce lists;
             * subscribed to a working group list; or
             * a Names Council member; or
             * a member of a DNSO Constituency.

          Note: A person with multiple email addresses is only counted
          once.

  3. Nominations should be emailed to the DNSO Secretariat at the following
     email address: [email-masked] and use the provided Template
     for nomination.

          Template for nomination:

             1a. Full name of the nominee:
             1b. E-mail address of the nominee:
             2a. Full name of the nominator:
             2b. E-mail address of the nominator:
             2c. Type of GA membership:
                 (GA-ga subscriber, GA-announce subscriber,
                 Working Group subscriber, or DNSO Constituency member)

     Nominations will be archived at:
     http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/icann-nominations/Arc02/

  4. Any nominee can express his/her acceptance or declination from the time
     he is nominated, until 3 hours after closing the nomination period.

     If no acceptance is expressed in the period, he/she is thought to have
     declined.

     The acceptance period closes on:

          Friday 30 August 2002 at 15:00 UTC (17:00 Paris)

          For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

     Acceptances should be emailed to the DNSO Secretariat at the following
     email address: [email-masked] and use the provided Template
     for acceptance.

          Template for acceptance:

             1. Full name of the nominee:
             2. E-mail address of the nominee:
             3. Organization you work for (if apply):
             4. Snail-mail address (street, city, country):
             5. The region that includes the country of which you are a
citizen:
             6. The region that includes the country in which you reside:
             7. A clear statement of acceptance of the nomination:
             8. If you are a Member of the Names Council, state your
intention
                to resign from the Names Council if you are elected to the
                ICANN Board:
             9. A Curriculum Vitae (no more than 500 words long):
            10. A statement indicating your ideas, intentions and/or
                the reason why you consider you should be elected to serve
                in the ICANN Board (no more than 500 words):

     Acceptances will be archived at:
     http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/icann-nominations/Arc02/

  5. After the deadline of acceptance, the list of accepted nominees will be
     published at
     http://www.dnso.org/elections/2002.DNSO-ICANN-nominees.html and the
     endorsement period will begin.

  6. The endorsements period shall take place starting

          Open: Friday 30 August 2002 at 16:00 UTC (18:00 Paris) (after the
          list of accepted nominees is published)
          Closed: Friday 20 September 2002 at 16:00 UTC (18:00 Paris) (3
          weeks)

          For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

     Members of the GA may endorse as many accepted nominees as they wish,
     but may only endorse any given accepted nominee once. While the Names
     Council will consider the number of endorsements for each accepted
     nominee as valuable input into the selection process, given the
     potential for abuse in an online process, such numbers will not be
     definitive.

     Endorsements should be emailed to the DNSO Secretariat at the following
     email address: [email-masked] and use the provided
     Template for endorsement.

          Template for endorsement:

             3a. Full name of the endorser:
             3b. E-mail address of the endorser:
             3c. Full name of the accepted nominee
                 you wish to endorse:
                 (specific statements of endorsements
                 may also be submitted and are encouraged)

     Endorsements will be archived at:
     http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/icann-endorsements/Arc02/

  7. All accepted nominees that receive 10 or more endorsements by Friday 20
     September 2002 at 16:00 UTC (18:00 Paris) shall be forwarded to the
     Names Council for selection.

     On 20 September 2002 no later than 22:00 UTC (24:00 Paris), a list of
     the accepted nominees and their endorsements will be published in
     http://www.dnso.org/elections/2002.DNSO-ICANN-nominees.html.

  8. A Watchdog Committee has been formed to police the nomination process
     to help detect and cure any instances of fraudulent activity in
     connection with the nomination process.

     Any instances of fraudulent nominations should be reported to this
     committee at the following email address: [email-masked], with a
     copy to the Names Council at [email-masked], This committee and the
     Names Council shall have the sole discretion as to how to deal with any
     such reported activity.

     Watchdog Committee list archive is at
     http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-watchdog/Arc00/

     The members of the Watchdog Committee in 2002 election are:
        o Roberto Gaetano
        o Harald Alvestrand
        o Kent Crispin
        o Dany Vandromme
        o Alexander Svensson
        o Izumi Aizu

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

                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1365
*************************