Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1378
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, August 17 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1378

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

Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 18:07:16 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>While I may have certain complaints and concerns about the DNSO, the
>effectiveness of its administrative functions is not among them.  I have
>been impressed with the ever-improving mechanisms that the DNSO has put
>into place: e-mail archives, audio recordings of meetings, etc.
>

But that's exactly the reason.

GAC incurs in a higher cost, and this will have to be refunded by ICANN, for 
*not* providing mechanisms like e-mail archives, audio recordings of 
meetings, etc.

I remember when unleaded gasoline was introduced: it had a higher price than 
regular, due to the cost of *not* putting lead into it.

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, 16 Aug 2002 14:53:11 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: At-Large Supporting Organization

(cc's snipped)

Jonathan and Vint --

         The marching orders of the ALAG (for folks who haven't been 
following closely, this is ICANN's *latest* advisory group on the 
at-large), as set out in 
<http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/status-report-24jul02.htm> 
(penultimatre paragraph), are to craft implementation details for an 
at-large advisory committee, "building on the Blueprint for Reform and the 
Board's subsequent Bucharest Resolution."  The Blueprint rejected an 
at-large supporting organization of the sort Danny describes, so it would 
be beyond the ALAG's charter to push for one now.  I think it's 
mystification to suggest that there should be no public debate on this 
issue until the ALAG releases its proposals for Blueprint 
implementation.  On the contrary, it's very much in order for Danny to ask 
exactly *why* the Blueprint (and the Board, adopting the Blueprint) 
rejected the ALSC's recommendation for an at-large supporting 
organization.  After all, we never have received an answer to that question.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
Professor of Law, Wayne State University
[email-masked]

At 10:49 AM 8/16/2002 -0400, Jonathan Cohen wrote:
>Danny ,
>you and i have talked about this before in 'general terms',but I would be
>pleased to clarify "my" thinking on the subject.It would be just that "my
>thinking" not that of the Board or any other Member.However, I think it
>appropriate to allow the ERC to finish its work and the ALAG to be looked at
>'objectively' by those who have undertaken the task.To open up this dialogue
>now undermines that effort. If ultimately it recommends an ALSO,or,if after
>some experience or debate that is considered a wise decision...I have every
>confidence it will be made. Other Constituencies that are 'arguably' better
>represented in ICANN (Some people feel the current "At Large" in ICANN
>consists of a relatively small number of individuals a large % of whom are
>American and that is not necessarily a"constituency' from which one can draw
>much policy comfort on a "global" scale)and which feel they should have an
>SO.  Lets chat in the Fall
>best regards
>Jonathan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: vinton g. cerf [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 9:48 AM
>To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>[email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: At-Large Supporting Organization
>
>
>Danny,
>
>The reform committee continues to refine its proposals - I think the general
>perspective is to see how the advisory committee organizes itself before
>making deeper commitments.
>
>vint
>
>At 11:58 PM 8/15/2002 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Hello Vint,
> >
> >Thank you for the prompt response.  I am sure that you understand that an
> >Advisory Committee, while providing opportunities for participation, is not
> >the equivalent of a Supporting Organization in that it cannot elect
> >representatives to the Board.  Is there a particular reason why the Board
>is
> >not amenable to such representation for the At-large community?  The ALSC
> >proposal for such an SO did have a broad base of community support -- the
> >only issue appeared to be the number of directors that it would elect...
> >
> >I can understand your decision to back away from global elections, but I
>find
> >it harder to understand why you would shy away from a representative
> >construct (the Supporting Organization) that has already served the
> >Corporation well.  Perhaps you and your fellow Board members can clarify
>your
> >thinking on this matter.  It certainly would be appreciated.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Danny
>
>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

- --
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, 16 Aug 2002 13:55:32 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: At-Large Supporting Organization

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
> 
> I consider this team to be sufficiently representative, well-credentialed, 
> and eminently capable of reaching a wise decision after a year's worth of 
> sustained effort.  The Board asked for a recommendation, and received a 
> recommendation -- to create a Supporting Organization for the At-large.
> 
> In my view, I believe that it is now time for the Board to articulate why the 
> recommendation of its own hand-selected committee of experts is "unwise".
> --

Danny,

This may be the reason...

http://www.opendemocracy.net/forum/document_details.asp?CatID=12&DocID=1704
Esther Dyson
"Users do know what they want - if they know enough to think about it."
=======

You may know what you want, but that apparently disqualifies you. You are able to think
for yourself. You do not need other people to decide what TLDs you can select. You do
not need people with advanced degrees to tell you that .COOP is better than .WEB. In
short, you do not need the services that ICANN provides. Apparently, tens of millions of
people do need those services, otherwise they would not be paying money for them...right ?

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

- --
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, 16 Aug 2002 12:24:33 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimbourse $75,000 to GAC for GAC Secretariat

Perhaps you have hit the nail on the head.

We here in the South-western US use the term unleaded for many pejorative
diminutive ideas including sex, brains, work ability and morality.  Somehow this
rings true in that ICANN is located here.

e

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >
> >While I may have certain complaints and concerns about the DNSO, the
> >effectiveness of its administrative functions is not among them.  I have
> >been impressed with the ever-improving mechanisms that the DNSO has put
> >into place: e-mail archives, audio recordings of meetings, etc.
> >
>
> But that's exactly the reason.
>
> GAC incurs in a higher cost, and this will have to be refunded by ICANN, for
> *not* providing mechanisms like e-mail archives, audio recordings of
> meetings, etc.
>
> I remember when unleaded gasoline was introduced: it had a higher price than
> regular, due to the cost of *not* putting lead into it.
>
> 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

- --
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, 16 Aug 2002 12:11:36 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc10/msg05002.html
From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>

"The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."
======

Are they trying to decide whether to charge $1 per domain name per year or 25 cents ?

Will ICANN be raising enough money to hire you as the CEO, now that Worldcom is history ?

Does ICANN plan to move out of the current location to a ranch it purchases overlooking the
Pacific Ocean ? Will there be an airstrip and stables for horses ? Will those be in the budget ?

When will companies like IBM, HP and AT&T start paying their equivalent share of rent for
address space ? Will that gain them special access to the ICANN Ranch and horseback rides ?
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

Will there also be room in the ICANN budget to pick up a mansion in the Beverly Hills area ?
...to host various gatherings to maintain the stability....job security....etc...

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

- --
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, 16 Aug 2002 15:17:53 -0400
From: "Jonathan Cohen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."

And will those who disagree stop villifying, name calling ,cheap shotting
because they dont get their way.Will people from 'some ' country stop
invoking its world view on every aspect of ICANN and the Internet.Will
,those who dont like directions or decisions of ICANN stop whining to
Congress or the DOC,will they take the time to check their facts,.Bob Dylan
said it in a song a long time ago .....''try spending a day in our shoes''
,as VOLUNTEERS, at considerable personal cost in time,energy and MONEY!!Try
listening to the push and pull from every direction,the criticism,the
Politics,the Rhetoric, name calling AND WORSE,while you try to do the Best
Job you can.Noone on the Board expects sympathy or "flowers"...But it would
sure be refreshing to get some 'Balance'and some decent debate ,where if you
dont win you shake hands and try again later...But maybe thats ''culturally
biased''  see you around the "Ranch"

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jim Fleming [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 1:12 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Vittorio
Bertola; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; todd glassey; Richard Henderson; Kristy McKee;
[email-masked]; Joop Teernstra; Joe Baptista; Joanna Lane;
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; Richard J. Sexton
Subject: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc10/msg05002.html
From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>

"The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."
======

Are they trying to decide whether to charge $1 per domain name per year or
25 cents ?

Will ICANN be raising enough money to hire you as the CEO, now that Worldcom
is history ?

Does ICANN plan to move out of the current location to a ranch it purchases
overlooking the
Pacific Ocean ? Will there be an airstrip and stables for horses ? Will
those be in the budget ?

When will companies like IBM, HP and AT&T start paying their equivalent
share of rent for
address space ? Will that gain them special access to the ICANN Ranch and
horseback rides ?
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

Will there also be room in the ICANN budget to pick up a mansion in the
Beverly Hills area ?
...to host various gatherings to maintain the stability....job
security....etc...

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

- --
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, 16 Aug 2002 14:43:51 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: At-Large Supporting Organization

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Weinberg" <[email-masked]>

" I think it's mystification to suggest that there should be no public debate
on this issue until the ALAG releases its proposals for Blueprint implementation."
=====

Why do you think there has to be anything done in public ? ICANN is a private company.

It would seem to be more important for ICANN to quickly decide on what they are
going to do with all of the money that will be flowing in from domain sales and address leasing.
The Board will of course likely allocate themselves enough money to cover their regional
offices. Then 100s of staffers will have to be hired, to relieve the "volunteers" of their duties.
A real CEO will be needed who is capable of running a $100 million dollar per year company.
The Board can then direct the CEO to look into the "AL" issues in a few years. In the short-term
revenue generation would have to be the main focus. R&D will have to be staffed and some
labs will have to be constructed. With DNS servers costing $500,000 each, a dozen of those
will be a $6,000,000 line item. If you factor in the Homeland Security costs, the budget will
likely have to be increased. Secure systems cost more. All the insiders who will be hired will
be very expensive. Why do you think .ARPA required so much funding over the years ?

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
0:0 .ARPA

- --
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, 16 Aug 2002 22:47:37 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC secretariat

- --=======25A517A5=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7415ECD; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Richard,
diplomaticaly said
- - the ITU proposed it for free
- - Twoomey was convinced to say he would continue to block the ITU proposition
- - but was not backed his Gov which does not trust ICANN anymore (cf. Jon's 
mails)

This only means the IETFs pride not to have ever considered what Leissig 
calls "layers violations" and which is only the reality, has struck again. 
There is no Internet culture to help ICANN geting real. That culture should 
be rooted in the RFC 920 and 1591 missing parapgraphs about relations of 
the NIC and ccTLD Managers with Telcos, public services and Govs.

Because their "other systems" (RFC 921) charged their services? So they 
were carefully hidden by Jon Postel? Some bucks saved 18 years ago which 
cost the world a lot today, and ICANN its credibility?

I could be wrong - but there are so many converging elements leading to 
that odd feeling ....

The day they understand ITU is not a problem but a reality, "layers 
violations" the mental violation of the reaility into a monomorphic vision, 
etc... may be will we be able to address the @large real needs in a 
practical maner and to stop DRMing innovation.

One can always hope....
jfc

On 16:24 16/08/02, [email-masked] said:

>A number of questions have been asked and comments made regarding the ICANN
>Board's recent decision to fund partly, for a limited period of time, the
>GAC secretariat and chair functions, see
>
>http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-13aug02.htm
>
>The following information, which is based on what I know, may answer some of
>the questions that have been raised.
>
>At the Accra meeting 11-12 March 2002, the Chair of GAC, Paul Twoomey,
>stated:
>
>"... the Chair advised that he will be resigning effective from the end of
>the Shanghai meeting and the Australian Government will cease providing the
>Secretariat function at the end of the Bucharest meeting."
>
>The issue of replacing the GAC Secretariat was discussed at the 9-10 April
>GAC meeting in Bruxelles and the 3-4 June GAC meeting in Canberra.
>
>At both those meetings, some GAC members, and in particular ITU, offered to
>provide some secretariat services as in-kind support for GAC.  Specifically,
>ITU offered to provide the basic secretariat support for meetings, at no
>cost to ICANN or to GAC (since the costs are already covered by ITU's
>participation).
>
>These offers were noted but not discussed.  It was noted that a global
>discussion of the nature and role of the GAC secretariat should take place
>in the context of ICANN reform.
>
>The GAC meeting in Bucharest was essentially focussed on preparing comments
>on the recently-published Blueprint for Reform.  At the very end of the
>meeting, at 3am, Paul Twoomey announced that Australia had reversed its
>previous decision to stop funding the Chair and the Secretariat and was
>willing to fund both the Chair and the Secretariat for an interim period.
>As a consequence, the Chair announced that Australia would continue to
>provide the Secretariat.
>
>I am informed that subsequently the Australian government informed ICANN
>that it would be willing to perform the role of GAC Secretariat, but
>indicated that it would no longer fund that role.  I am informed that the
>Australian government subsequently raised with ICANN the issue of finding
>alternative sources of funding.
>
>As noted in previous E-Mails, the Board made a decision to provide up to
>$75'000 dollars to the Australian goverment, to cover actual costs of chair
>and secretariat services for a limited period of time.
>
>I am informed that a draft budget for this funding, for the period 1 July to
>15 November, is being prepared by the GAC Secretariat and will be circulated
>to the GAC membership.
>
>Best,
>Richard
>
>-----------------------------------------
>Richard Hill
>Counsellor, ITU-T SG2
>International Telecommunication Union
>Place des Nations
>CH-1211 Geneva 20
>Switzerland
>tel: +41 22 730 5887
>FAX: +41 22 730 5853
>Email: [email-masked]
>Study Group 2 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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/02

- --=======25A517A5=======--

- --
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, 16 Aug 2002 13:55:29 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Private/Public do not confuse

Wait a second the posting was un-clear.

Since when is a company claiming to be not-for-profit private.
That is a oxymoron.  How can it benefit the public good and contract under FOI as a concessionaire and
be private?  Now if someone is using the term to mean not publicly traded OK.  But if they are using
the term to mean ability to keep everything private -WRONG.

ICANN agreed to in a contract and set up its' bylaws to be completely public in the eye of the
stakeholder.
They have breached this agreement.

e

Jim Fleming wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Weinberg" <[email-masked]>
>
> " I think it's mystification to suggest that there should be no public debate
> on this issue until the ALAG releases its proposals for Blueprint implementation."
> =====
>
> Why do you think there has to be anything done in public ? ICANN is a private company.
>
> It would seem to be more important for ICANN to quickly decide on what they are
> going to do with all of the money that will be flowing in from domain sales and address leasing.
> The Board will of course likely allocate themselves enough money to cover their regional
> offices. Then 100s of staffers will have to be hired, to relieve the "volunteers" of their duties.
> A real CEO will be needed who is capable of running a $100 million dollar per year company.
> The Board can then direct the CEO to look into the "AL" issues in a few years. In the short-term
> revenue generation would have to be the main focus. R&D will have to be staffed and some
> labs will have to be constructed. With DNS servers costing $500,000 each, a dozen of those
> will be a $6,000,000 line item. If you factor in the Homeland Security costs, the budget will
> likely have to be increased. Secure systems cost more. All the insiders who will be hired will
> be very expensive. Why do you think .ARPA required so much funding over the years ?
>
> Jim Fleming
> 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> 0:0 .ARPA
>
> --
> 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, 16 Aug 2002 16:56:03 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."

Jon,

I respect your call for "balance" and some decent debate.  To that end, I 
would like to offer you my perspective as a volunteer that like yourself has 
also participated in the ICANN process at considerable personal cost in time, 
energy, and money.

There was a time when the Internet community expected to see nine At-large 
directors on the Board.  Some of us were able to comprehend the rationale to 
reduce this number to five.  But now after several year's worth of 
discussion, the number has been reduced to Zero.  If you were in our shoes, 
you would assuredly think that the pendulum has swung way too far in the 
wrong direction.  While others are entitled to representation and are able to 
elect their own directors onto the Board, the At-large community is now being 
denied this opportunity -- simply put, this is not in keeping with the spirit 
of fairness that ICANN seeks to promote as a core value.  The concept of 
"balance" would dictate at least some degree of representation for the 
At-Large.

I, for one, am prepared to accept and make concessions.  While (9) is the 
magic number for me, and (0) is the magic number for the Board, somewhere in 
that range should be a number that reasonable people can agree upon... it is 
time to end this unnecessary posturing and arrive at a solution that no one 
will truly like, but that everyone can live with.

Zero representatives for the At-large is not a "reasonable" proposition -- 
you can't expect us to accept that scenario without ongoing never-ending 
acrimony.  For ICANN to function well it needs to resolve this issue amicably 
so that we can all return to a focus on the day-to-day problems that require 
our full-time attention.  As a reasonable man, would you be willing to come 
back to the table and offer up another proposal that at least provides for 
some degree of representation for the At-Large?  Feel free to ask for 
concessions on our part as well.

Best wishes,
Danny
- --
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, 16 Aug 2002 17:44:45 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfers TF and ICANN Staff support

Danny and all assembly members,

  It is clear and has been for some time now that the predominant problem
with ICANN or DNSO task force(s) is a lack of good management
due to the skewed selection process imposed by the ICANN BOD
and in particular the ICANN staff.  We have seen this continue unabated
for almost a year now with first the .ORG Task force and now for some
time, the TF Task force...

[email-masked] wrote:

> Marilyn,
>
> The NC unanimously passed this resolution at Marina del Rey:  “That the NC
> shows its support for the Transfer Task Force and the importance of its work.
> The NC requests ICANN staff to assist the task force in any legal definitions
> and the identification of any contract modifications that may be needed. The
> NC looks forward to receiving a resolution of this important issue by the
> Ghana meeting (March 2002).”
>
> Can you provide us with an update on ICANN Staff support so far regarding
> "the identification of any contract modifications that may be needed"?  Has
> Staff made any of these "identifications"?  Nine months is surely ample time
> for the Staff to do its job, isn't it?  As I haven't seen anything posted so
> far, perhaps you can enlighten those of us in the registrant community that
> aren't eligible to participate in your teleconferences (and for which there
> are still no minutes available).
>
> P.S.  any progress on a timeline yet?  It's already way past the Ghana
> meeting, and I think we deserve to know when this process will come to an
> end, don't you?  I'm curious... why do you seem to have a problem abiding by
> the ERC recommendation to complete policy work within 30-45 days?  Is this
> your own way of defying the Board?
> --
> 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 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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, 16 Aug 2002 20:11:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..." [resend]

for some reason the message below doesn't seem to have reached the GA list
I've trimmed the cc's for this resend.  Apologies for any duplication.

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:48:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law <[email-masked]>
To: Jonathan Cohen <[email-masked]>
[cc's were included in the original message]

I see you do have time to send email.  Well then, allow me to check facts:

Is it true as alleged on the GA list that the ITU was willing to pick up
the charges needed to support the GAC, but ICANN chose to pay US$75,000
itself...in the absence of any need or contractual obligation to do so?

And why exactly should I be denied my right to petition congress and the
executive for a redress of grievances?  When it's the actions of the us
government that empower ICANN?  And it's ICANN which has chosen to
disenfranchise me.  I certainly have no vote on anything ICANN does, and
you are planning to put the last nail in that coffin in October.  I should
sit quietly and take my medicine?  

Incidentally, I find your comment that we should try to imagine what it is
like to be in your shoes especially insulting, as it is your decisions
which ensure that no one representing me will ever get to do exactly that.
And of course, there's no 'try again later' once you've been shut out
completely of the voting power.   In fact, we had about 3 tries on getting
user representation, all rejected by the ICANN board.  That's a lot of
tries already. 

My cultural bias is in favor of representative structures and strict
accountability.  What's yours?

On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Jonathan Cohen wrote:

> And will those who disagree stop villifying, name calling ,cheap shotting
> because they dont get their way.Will people from 'some ' country stop
> invoking its world view on every aspect of ICANN and the Internet.Will
> ,those who dont like directions or decisions of ICANN stop whining to
> Congress or the DOC,will they take the time to check their facts,.Bob Dylan
> said it in a song a long time ago .....''try spending a day in our shoes''
> ,as VOLUNTEERS, at considerable personal cost in time,energy and MONEY!!Try
> listening to the push and pull from every direction,the criticism,the
> Politics,the Rhetoric, name calling AND WORSE,while you try to do the Best
> Job you can.Noone on the Board expects sympathy or "flowers"...But it would
> sure be refreshing to get some 'Balance'and some decent debate ,where if you
> dont win you shake hands and try again later...But maybe thats ''culturally
> biased''  see you around the "Ranch"
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Fleming [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 1:12 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Vittorio
> Bertola; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; todd glassey; Richard Henderson; Kristy McKee;
> [email-masked]; Joop Teernstra; Joe Baptista; Joanna Lane;
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Richard J. Sexton
> Subject: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."
> 
> 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc10/msg05002.html
> From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
> 
> "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."
> ======
> 
> Are they trying to decide whether to charge $1 per domain name per year or
> 25 cents ?
> 
> Will ICANN be raising enough money to hire you as the CEO, now that Worldcom
> is history ?
> 
> Does ICANN plan to move out of the current location to a ranch it purchases
> overlooking the
> Pacific Ocean ? Will there be an airstrip and stables for horses ? Will
> those be in the budget ?
> 
> When will companies like IBM, HP and AT&T start paying their equivalent
> share of rent for
> address space ? Will that gain them special access to the ICANN Ranch and
> horseback rides ?
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> 
> Will there also be room in the ICANN budget to pick up a mansion in the
> Beverly Hills area ?
> ....to host various gatherings to maintain the stability....job
> security....etc...
> 
> 
> Jim Fleming
> 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                      -->It's very hot here.<--

- --
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, 16 Aug 2002 19:44:24 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..." [resend]

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..." [resend]

> for some reason the message below doesn't seem to have reached the GA list
> I've trimmed the cc's for this resend.  Apologies for any duplication.
>

It looks like the "GA" and "DNSO" will be phased out...the IETF is the "main venue" ??

http://www.icann.org/committees/dns-root/rssac-notes-15jul02.htm
"Most members felt, however, that IETF meetings should continue to be the main venue for RSSAC meetings, due to convenience factors.
Several members noted that having renewed IAB/IESG involvement would be helpful, and it was agreed that a renewed invitation to
IAB/IESG to designate liaison members should be made."
Attendees

Ray Plzak, ARIN
Joao Dumas, RIPE NCC, K
Frederico Neves, LACNIC
Louis Touton, ICANN
Don Wilder, ARIN
George Michaelson, APNIC
John Crain, ICANN, L
Suzanne Woolf, L,F
Bill Manning, B
Nevil Brownlee, CAIDA
David Conrad, Nominum
Paul Vixie, C, F
Randy Runkles, G
Cathy Murphy, ARIN
Akira Kato, M
Jun Murai, Chair & M
Lars Liman, I
Johan Ihren, I
Paul Wilson, APNIC
Brad Verd, A, J
Kenjiro Cho, SONY
Yuji Sekiya, WIDE
Jerry Sneeringer  - phone
kc Claffy - phone

========
http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/final-report-31jul02.htm
  a.. Jaap Akkerhuis (ccTLD Constituency)
  b.. Sebastien Bachollet (Business Constituency)
  c.. Marilyn Cade (Business Constituency)
  d.. David Conrad (Root Server Systems Advisory Committee)
  e.. Michael Heltzer (Intellectual Property Constituency)
  f.. Geoff Huston (Protocol Support Organization)
  g.. Roberto Laorden (Protocol Support Organization)
  h.. Stuart Lynn (Chair)
  i.. Vany Martinez (Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency)
  j.. Y J Park (Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency)
  k.. Adrian Pinder (Government Advisory Committee Liaison)
=====================================================
http://www.icann.org/general/status-report-15aug02.htm
"Thus, considerable progress under this task has been made, and is continuing."
=====

Meanwhile, real progress is being made...

2002 0:201 .COM
http://www.thepricedomain.com/index.php?domainlist=com
2002 1:158 .CLUB
2002 2:143 .FAMILY
http://www.New.Net
2002 3:219 .INFO
http://www.Name-Space.com
http://www.thepricedomain.com/index.php?domainlist=info
2002 4:58 .LLC
2002 5:194 .INC
http://www.New.Net
2002 6:171 .TV
http://www.TV
2002 7:195 .CHURCH

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

- --
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, 16 Aug 2002 20:03:48 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: "ICANN's purpose is to serve the public interest."  ??

Can you point to the positive, pro-active, actions that Karl has taken since elected to the Board ?

Has Karl prepared a proposed budget for next year ?

When was the last time Karl was in the ICANN offices and reviewed the employee time records ?

Despite a Directors disagreements with an organization, they still have to bear full responsibility for
their actions from the day they become a Director to the day they are no longer a Director.

It appears as though ICANN will clean house and get new Directors and new Staff. In order to
attract quality Directors and Staff, revenues have to be arranged to support payment of quality people.
It makes no sense to have Directors who are never in the ICANN offices. It makes no sense to
have Staff who do not report to work, or report on their progress. The Directors have (or had)
a fiduciary responsibility to make it all happen...has that happened ?

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Vittorio Bertola" <[email-masked]>;
"Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>; "Kristy McKee" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra"
<[email-masked]>; "Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>; "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: "ICANN's purpose is to serve the public interest." ??

> No Jeff - he (Karl)  is bound by a confidentiality agreement between him and
> the Board, and  I am sure of that. So Karl cannot legally disclose the
> contents of any board actions or its finances or those actions of ICANN
> management under penalty of a civil suit.
>
> The problem is that ICANN would be really hard pressed to actually get any
> money out of the suit, but they could under the California Bar's new ethics
> sensitivity, file a complaint that he was unethical and that might be an
> issue. Either way, I would not be surprised to hear Karl say that he would
> not disclose the contents of the financial records that he was to review as
> a Director.
>
> Todd
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; "Vittorio Bertola" <[email-masked]>; "Richard
> Henderson" <[email-masked]>; "Kristy McKee" <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>; "Joe
> Baptista" <[email-masked]>; "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Eric Dierker"
> <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 7:10 PM
> Subject: Re: "ICANN's purpose is to serve the public interest." ??
>
>
> > Todd and all,
> >
> > todd glassey wrote:
> >
> > > Response inline below - Karl - please feel free to correct me if I am
> wrong
> > > anywhere here.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> > > To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> > > Cc: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> > > <[email-masked]>; "Vittorio Bertola" <[email-masked]>; "Richard
> > > Henderson" <[email-masked]>; "Kristy McKee"
> <[email-masked]>;
> > > <[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>; "Joe
> > > Baptista" <[email-masked]>; "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>;
> > > <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> > > <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Karl Auerbach"
> > > <[email-masked]>
> > > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 6:19 PM
> > > Subject: Re: "ICANN's purpose is to serve the public interest." ??
> > >
> > > > Todd and all,
> > > >
> > > >   I believe that what you suggest is exactly what Karl is doing now
> > > > with the financial records he is recieving from ICANN as the
> > > > legal action he took required ICANN to provide...
> > >
> > > I dont think that Karl can legally disclose anything he is exposed to in
> > > confidence as a board memeber unless he sees something that he knows is
> an
> > > illegality.
> >
> >   I believe that he actually can legally.  None the less Todd, Karl will
> > not be a member of the BOD much longer...  Hence this may be a moot
> > point...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > What I want is a full-on audit capable of catching any illegality or
> > > contrdictions in its operations, since the organization (as far as I can
> > > tell) has failed under the Laws of California to operate itself in
> concert
> > > with its charter and original by-laws that were necessary to obtain the
> NTIA
> > > contract. What this means is that ICANN either made promises to the
> Federal
> > > Government in order to beawarded the NTIA contract that they allegedly
> have
> > > not kept, and that they are now voting to eliminate from the by laws to
> > > permanently silence that requirement. But from all I can see, a
> concerted
> > > effort to actually accomplish that would be fraud and since it would
> take
> > > many people within ICANN to pull that off and they are across State
> Lines,
> > > this becomes a Federal Matter for the FBI and takes on a real ugly set
> of
> > > possibilities.
> > >
> > > Before we get to a Qui Tam action against ICANN on the behalf of the US
> > > Domain Owners, I think an end-to-end audit by a real world professional
> > > auditor (KPMG, E&Y, D&T, or PWC) should be done and presented as a
> public
> > > document to NTIA and NIST to document ICANN's operations under the NTIA
> > > contract. Further I bet Senator Burns office would like a copy too! My
> gut
> > > level feeling is that this audit might send a number of people running
> for
> > > cover.
> > >
> > > So that's my point. What I want is a real end-to-end SAS70 compliant
> audit
> > > for ICANN and it needs to happen now.
> >
> >   I see your point here now clearly, and agree with it as well.  Again
> though,
> > none the less this can be done at a not to distant later date as well
> > depending on what Karls data shows, and can be found if he
> > wishes to do so...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > todd glassey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Actually folks - this is closer than you think to the reality but
> what's
> > > > > funny is that ICANN is not really NPO. Its just not supposed to show
> a
> > > > > profit on paper, but I assure you the business of serving names and
> the
> > > > > people writing the rules for it really needs an end-to-end financial
> > > audit.
> > > > > My feeling is that ICANN's paperwork processes may make Enron's look
> > > like a
> > > > > joke.
> > > > >
> > > > > But hey - only an Audit would tell, Eh? So why don't we demand one?
> > > > >
> > > > > Todd
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
> > > > > To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Vittorio Bertola"
> > > > > <[email-masked]>; "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>;
> > > "Richard
> > > > > Henderson" <[email-masked]>; "Kristy McKee"
> > > <[email-masked]>;
> > > > > <[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>;
> "Joe
> > > > > Baptista" <[email-masked]>; "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>;
> > > > > <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>;
> > > > > <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 5:42 AM
> > > > > Subject: "ICANN's purpose is to serve the public interest." ??
> > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc10/msg04998.html
> > > > > > From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "ICANN's purpose is to serve the public interest."
> > > > > > ========
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have you ever heard the comment, "Do not judge a book...by it's
> cover"
> > > ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you really think the people behind ICANN have any interest in
> > > "serving
> > > > > the public" ?
> > > > > > ...have you noticed how they are always at the head of any line to
> the
> > > > > buffet ?
> > > > > > ...and there is no food left for the public...once they have eaten
> > > their
> > > > > fill...
> > > > > > ...follow the money...it comes from the public and does not
> return...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have you considered an approach where you face the facts that
> ICANN
> > > has
> > > > > > nothing to do with "serving the public" ?...just imagine they are
> a
> > > > > private club...that
> > > > > > serves the people who choose to join...who knows ?....maybe ICANN
> will
> > > > > convert
> > > > > > to for-profit and go for an IPO...would the "public" be served by
> > > being
> > > > > allowed to
> > > > > > own part of the company ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jim Fleming
> > > > > > 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
> > > > > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> > > > > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > --
> > > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
> > > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
> > 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1378
*************************