Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1380
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Sunday, August 18 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1380

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

Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 10:13:23 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Shaping ICANN...Who Can...?...You Can ?

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
> those people do make progress in trying to shape
> ICANN more to their liking, because they invest the elbow grease it takes
> to get that done.  Of course, you sneer at these folks as "collaborators,"
=======

What are your latest billings to ICANN ?
What are your total billings to ICANN ?
Did you once claim to be working "pro-bono" and then charge $250,000 one month ?

As an attorney representing ICANN, have you advised the company on the revenues
it should be collecting from the various companies using 0:0 .ARPA address space ?

There are 16,777,216 IPv4 addresses in a /8.
Many companies lease those addresses for $10 per month.
It is common for a broker to take one month as their annual fee in the real estate market.

Given the above...that would mean a /8 leases for $167,772,160 per year, rounded to $168 million.

Will AT&T and the other companies be prepared to pay ICANN that each year ?
...will that be split with Lucent ?

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
012/8           AT&T Bell Laboratories                  Jun 95
======

What about ARIN, RIPE and APNIC ?
Will they be paying that each year to ICANN for *each* of the /8s they have ?

ARIN 024/8, 063/8, 064/8, 065/8, 066/8, 067/8, 068/8, 069/8, 199/8, 200/8, 204/8, 205/8, 206/8, 207/8, 208/8, 209/8, 216/8
RIPE 080/8, 081/8, 193/8, 194/8, 195/8, 212/8, 213/8, 217/8, 
APNIC 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8

ARIN - 17 /8s - $2,852,126,720 annual fee
RIPE - 8 /8s - $1,342,177,280 annual fee
APNIC - 8 /8s - $1,342,177,280 annual fee
...approximately $6 billion dollars per year in revenue to ICANN...

Does ICANN need that much revenue from Address Space Leasing with the $1 per domain per year fee?
....which may yield ~$50,000,000 a year...

Should domain name fees subsidize address space users ?
Why does ARIN pay ICANN while AT&T does not pay ICANN ?

Why haven't the ICANN Directors charged all of the address space users the same ?

What will China, Africa and Latin America be paying ICANN for address space ?

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: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 11:16:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Sim wags the dog - Was: Your latest rant

Oh the nastyness of it all.  I always enjoy seeing self important legal
begels of prominence being reduced to babbling babes of offense.  Well
done joe - very impressive - excellent trolling qualities you have
displayed here.

Now i tell ya - Frommkin has yet to grasp the big picture - but he ain't
no dummy.  He knows the business.  And is in fact a legal expert on
subjects ICANN.

Joe - by ICANN's measure you rants have gone downhill.

congrats
joe baptista

On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Joe Sims wrote:

> Your "cultural bias," as best I can tell, is to try to get your 15 minutes
> of fame by becoming the Cassandra of ICANN, apparently hoping to rescue an
> otherwise unimpressive career by finding a niche where you can be perceived
> as the expert.  And I have to admit that you have been pretty successful at
> that goal -- at least in the sense that you do get lots of attention, and
> invitations to testify, and calls from reporters.  Is it exciting?  Of
> course, there is one little thing:  it does not appear that your constant
> criticism has much impact, on anything.  Maybe that is because there are
> lots of other people, many of whom are also critical of some aspects of
> ICANN, who instead of just posting rants on the GA list and exercising
> their ego to run a webpage, actually dig in and work at trying to make
> ICANN more effective; those people do make progress in trying to shape
> ICANN more to their liking, because they invest the elbow grease it takes
> to get that done.  Of course, you sneer at these folks as "collaborators,"
> but the real sneers here from serious people are reserved for folks like
> you, who have no skin in the game, no willingness to invest even a little
> positive effort, and who insist that their positions are written on tablets
> and not subject to compromise.  Junk like the stuff you post is exactly the
> reason why more people do not participate in this or other similar forums,
> because it is a waste of time.  Of course, perhaps the worst thing from
> your point would be to actually succeed, since there would no longer be an
> excuse to pontificate on such weighty issues.  An advance warning: I am not
> going to engage in a continuing debate with you or your fellow travelers on
> this point, so fire away all you want; you won't get a response.  But your
> attack on Jon, who actually went to the (apparently useless) trouble to try
> to engage in a dialogue, has left me with an irresistable compulsion to
> point out that, despite all the noise generated by Froomkin Inc., there is
> no "there" there.  Have a good day.
>
>
> Joe Sims
> Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> Washington, D.C. 20001
> Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
>
> ==========
> The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
> or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information.  It
> is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).  If you are
> not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
> replying to this message and then delete it from your system.  Use,
> dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
> recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
> ==========
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 17:59:21 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: "The reform committee continues to refine its proposals..."

On 2002-08-16 15:17:53 -0400, Jonathan Cohen wrote:

>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"

I'd add one thing (but then again, I'm culturally biased, too):  
Don't let differences of opinion (which reasonable and intelligent  
people may quite well have) lead to personal crusades fought in  
public fora.

Note that I don't have any objection against a passionate or polemic 
argument - not at all.  Polemics have always been a legitimate  
instrument of rhetorics, and of intelligent debate.  Apart of that,  
a good polemic argument is entertaining reading, most of the time.

But this doesn't mean that anyone may attack the personal and 
professional integrity or reputation of other participants without 
very (and I mean VERY!) good reason.  It also doesn't mean that 
anyone may turn a - possibly legitimate! - argument against the 
actions taken by a body as a whole into an attack against an 
individual member of that body, very good reasons for that being 
absent.

/The parties are advised to chill./

(See: http://tools.schwimmerlegal.com/blog/2002/07/31.html#a84)

- -- 
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: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:47:05 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Sim wags the dog - Was: Your latest rant

I cut off JS's post as I will not republish slander.  And I respond here
instead
of to Jim. but I include his response;
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc10/msg05041.html 

From what I can read Joe Sims in this case does not represent anyone but
him himself as a self aggrandizing jackass.  If that offends anyone I
apologize for the world as it is.

There are folks on our board that are just plain getting shitty advice
from counsel and staff.
Otherwise they would act in accordance with international standards and
stand up to wrong.

I look to those good members of our board to stand up and pierce the
haze of legalism and do what it right in this time of choice.

The most good is by engaging, the least is by remaining silent to us
here and in the AL.

Some around think that GW is limiting his attacks on corporate cheating
to SEC types, they would be wrong and Don Evans knows so.

Only Karl is safe right now.  If you are a board member from Auquala of
the Deep you are subject to California and US law and you better start
acting like it.  Turning your head to foul play and theft is bad ju ju.

e

Joe Baptista wrote:

> Oh the nastyness of it all.  I always enjoy seeing self important legal
> begels of prominence being reduced to babbling babes of offense.  Well
> done joe - very impressive - excellent trolling qualities you have
> displayed here.
>
> Now i tell ya - Frommkin has yet to grasp the big picture - but he ain't
> no dummy.  He knows the business.  And is in fact a legal expert on
> subjects ICANN.
>
> Joe - by ICANN's measure you rants have gone downhill.
>
> congrats
> joe baptista
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 12:51:29 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Convincing

OK folks,

I am now convinced that a full throttle assault on our board to get some
of them to turn the switch from right to wrong is warranted.

Danny's compromises are ok.  Let us not attack them.

But let us all go outside to inside to convince the fence straddlers on
the BoD that the AL and stakeholder integration and open and transparent
is right.

I am taking some time off to swat My Son, Daughter and all the Young
college punks down with a volleyball.
But when I come back I want action. (Of course I will be injured and
slow)  The fire is burning and the iron is hot - it is time to strike
and make things right.  We can help our BoD in the large part make good
decisions.
We can help them to see the error of the Staff and Joe Sims and Jones
Day, Now is the time ignite.
Pick out our board not as a whole but one by one, united they are duped,
divided they are reasonable.

May we work with an eye toward doing good, and be forgivin our failings.

e

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

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

Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 16:04:15 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Transfers and the Policy-Development Process

I have to ask:  Why can't the DNSO arrive at policy recommendations in a 
timely manner?  What is it about the process that has gone so awry that it 
takes a year or longer just to arrive at a recommendation?  Do participants 
in the process even understand the nature of policy development, their own 
role, and the roles of others in bringing an effort to fruition?  

I recently had occasion to review the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a piece 
of legislation that should be quite familiar to the Chair of the Transfers 
Task Force (in that she also functions as a paid lobbyist for AT&T), as there 
are undeniably clear parallels between domain name portability issues 
(transfers) and telephone number portability issues.  This is what I was able 
to discern:

Congress recognized that to increase competition in the local telephone 
market service, certain barriers to competition needed to be eliminated. One 
of the major barriers was the inability of customers to switch from one 
telephone company to another and still keep the same number.  It was realized 
that customers would be hesitant to switch to new telephone service providers 
if they were unable to keep their existing telephone numbers. Congress 
therefore directed local telephone companies to offer "telephone number 
portability" in accordance with requirements prescribed by the FCC.

How was the initial policy development process handled?  

1.  The issue was first discussed within the industry.  The industry did not 
succeed in its own self-regulatory efforts and this led to the "slamming 
wars" (a phenomenon now manifest as well in the domain name industry).

2.  The public became involved (generating a slew of hate mail and complaints 
similar to that received on the ICANN Public Forums and on the GA list).

3.  Legislators took notice and discussed the matter within their chambers 
(comparable to NC members discussing the issue within the Council).

4.  A legislative committee was formed to further review the matter and to 
draft policy (this equates to the NC launching its transfers task force).

5.  The committee prepared a law for consideration by Congress (this 
corresponds to a TF Final report) and the Congress, after debate, voted upon 
the law and sent it to the President for signature (akin to NC report 
ratification that is then sent to the ICANN Board for action).

But what did the actual policy (law) on portability look like?  It was no 
more than this:

"Each local exchange carrier has the following duties:  NUMBER PORTABILITY- 
The duty to provide, to the extent               technically feasible, number 
portability in accordance with requirements prescribed by the Commission."

The policy itself was simple.  Extremely simple.

The implementation of that policy was left to the appropriate body (the FCC 
that would set the requirements).  Extending the analogy to ICANN, this would 
mean a Resolution that stated:

Resolved [02.XX] that the President and General Counsel are authorized to 
conduct negotiations on behalf of ICANN toward appropriate revisions to 
agreements between ICANN, registries, and registrars to implement Domain Name 
Portability in a manner consistent with recommendations to be devised by a 
Technical Steering Group to be convened under the auspices of ICANN Staff.

Just as we had a Technical Steering Group that attended to the "details" of 
the Redemption Grace Period, so too should there be such a group to attend to 
the implementation details on transfers.  This portion of the work-load is 
not the responsibility of the DNSO or its Task Force on Transfers -- their 
sole job is to determine appropriate policy which may, as in the case of the 
above example, be no more than one sentence.  It should not take ten months, 
or longer, to arrive at such "policy".

The current DNSO Transfers Task Force is attempting to wear too many hats.  
It has moved far beyond its mandate to develop policy recommendations and has 
entered the arena of implementation details.  All that they have been asked 
to do is to recommend a "policy", nothing more.  The policy could be as 
simple as:

In that ICANN as a matter of established policy is committed to reducing 
barriers to competition, and in that the inability of registrants to readily 
switch registrars constitutes a barrier to such competition, the Names 
Council advises the ICANN Board that a binding consensus policy should be 
established that states that each registrar has the duty to provide 
registrants with facile domain name portability in accordance with 
requirements prescribed by the Technical Steering Group assigned to this task 
and as approved by the ICANN Board.

Of course, a task force needs to collect input, it needs to arrive at a 
determination as to whether circumstances warrant the development of a 
policy, but the actual policy-development process itself need not consume an 
inordinate amount of time by straying into areas that are not rightfully 
within the purview of the policy-recommending organ -- there are indeed other 
groups that can be formed to deal with the technical implementation 
considerations.  

Keep it simple, and get the job done.  Focus on policy development, and on 
that alone.  That is all you were chartered to do.

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

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

Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 16:02:51 -0500
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Almost all that is wrong with ICANN...

Almost all that is wrong with ICANN can be firmly planted at the feet of Joe
Sims.

I have watched and participated in the evolution of ICANN from its very
beginning and, although not publicly stated, came to this conclusion early
on.  The latest over-the-top posting by Mr. Sims (included below) has
finally prompted me to state publicly the reasons for my conclusion and my
firm belief that the *single most important thing* the ICANN Board can do to
reform ICANN is to replace Joe Sims and the firm he represents, Jones Day
Reavis & Pogue, as ICANN's legal advisor.

For those of you that don't know me (and many of you don't, as I don't post
very often nor am I very political), I started in 1995 probably the first
major company on the Internet that focused exclusively in retail domain name
registration, Namesecure. (NOTE: I am no longer associated with Namesecure.)
The term "registrar" was not even in the vocabulary at that time and, of
course, all domain name registrations were done through Network Solutions
(now VeriSign).  When competition in domain name registrations was first
opened up by ICANN, Namesecure was in the very first group of companies to
become ICANN-accredited registrars.

It was during the initial "test-bed" phase of introducing competition that
Joe Sims first became known to me.  Without going into all the details,
Namesecure had a particular issue with the way in which the test-bed was
being run.  I presented our concerns to both Mike Roberts (ICANN's President
at the time) and Esther Dyson (ICANN's Board Chair at the time).  We had a
few emails go back and forth and, as I recall, a final email from me to
Esther thanking her for directing me to, I believe, the Department of
Commerce for resolution of the issue.  It was after that last email to
Esther that I received, in error, a carbon copy of an email that Joe Sims
had sent to Esther.  In that email, Joe basically said to Esther something
along the lines of, "looks like it was worth sending that last email...seems
to have done the trick".  In other words, they (ICANN) had succeeded in
getting rid of me and the issue we were concerned with.

My first thought after receiving that mistakenly directed email from Joe
was, who the hell is this guy and why is he involved in correspondence
between Esther and myself.  It was on further investigation that I found out
Joe Sims was a lawyer with the Washington DC based Jones Day law firm and
that Jones Day represented ICANN.  It was, I believe, over the course of the
next few months that Joe Sims also became known to me as the person most
responsible for selecting the original un-elected ICANN Board.

Being a rather curious type, I was interested in just who this person was
and at the first annual ICANN meeting in California in 1999, I introduced
myself to Joe and asked a question regarding having been involved in putting
the Board together.  Joe cut me off pretty short, turned his back to me and
then walked away.  Joe's attitude and demeanor towards me left me thinking,
"What an arrogant asshole".

I've learned over the years that my first impressions of people, while many
times close to being right, are sometimes way off the mark.  Because of
this, I try very hard not to rely on first impressions and always try to
reserve personal judgments of people for later.  In the case of Joe Sims, I
have over the past few years casually watched him in action.  I've seen him
address the Board, watched him make presentations, overheard conversations
he's had with others, read his posts to mailing lists, read his quotes in
news articles, watched his body language and, not once have I ever seen or
heard anything that sways me from my initial impression.  At this point, to
me, Joe Sims *is* an arrogant asshole.

Those that know me know that I am not in the business of making personal
public attacks on people.  The reason I do today is in the context of what I
am now going to say.  It is my personal belief that the one trait, above all
others, that collectively ICANN and the ICANN Board has shown over the past
few years is one of arrogance.  And, I now believe, most of that can be
traced to Joe Sim's role in selecting the initial Board and all his
involvement in policymaking and policy decisions of ICANN and the ICANN
Board since.  Forget the Blueprint for Reform; no amount of real reformation
of ICANN will take place until Joe Sims and Jones Day are no longer
associated with it.  It's been a bad marriage from the start and it's time
to get a divorce!

Best regards,

Jeff

- --
jeff field
952-848-7626
952-848-7627 fax
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
- -----

On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Joe Sims wrote:

> Your "cultural bias," as best I can tell, is to try to get your 15 minutes
> of fame by becoming the Cassandra of ICANN, apparently hoping to rescue an
> otherwise unimpressive career by finding a niche where you can be
perceived
> as the expert.  And I have to admit that you have been pretty successful
at
> that goal -- at least in the sense that you do get lots of attention, and
> invitations to testify, and calls from reporters.  Is it exciting?  Of
> course, there is one little thing:  it does not appear that your constant
> criticism has much impact, on anything.  Maybe that is because there are
> lots of other people, many of whom are also critical of some aspects of
> ICANN, who instead of just posting rants on the GA list and exercising
> their ego to run a webpage, actually dig in and work at trying to make
> ICANN more effective; those people do make progress in trying to shape
> ICANN more to their liking, because they invest the elbow grease it takes
> to get that done.  Of course, you sneer at these folks as "collaborators,"
> but the real sneers here from serious people are reserved for folks like
> you, who have no skin in the game, no willingness to invest even a little
> positive effort, and who insist that their positions are written on
tablets
> and not subject to compromise.  Junk like the stuff you post is exactly
the
> reason why more people do not participate in this or other similar forums,
> because it is a waste of time.  Of course, perhaps the worst thing from
> your point would be to actually succeed, since there would no longer be an
> excuse to pontificate on such weighty issues.  An advance warning: I am
not
> going to engage in a continuing debate with you or your fellow travelers
on
> this point, so fire away all you want; you won't get a response.  But your
> attack on Jon, who actually went to the (apparently useless) trouble to
try
> to engage in a dialogue, has left me with an irresistable compulsion to
> point out that, despite all the noise generated by Froomkin Inc., there is
> no "there" there.  Have a good day.
>
>
> Joe Sims
> Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> Washington, D.C. 20001
> Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
>
> ==========
> The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
> or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information.  It
> is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).  If you
are
> not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
> replying to this message and then delete it from your system.  Use,
> dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
> recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
> ==========

- --
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: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 01:41:32 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfers and the Policy-Development Process

On 2002-08-17 16:04:15 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

>Keep it simple, and get the job done.  Focus on policy  
>development, and on that alone.  That is all you were chartered to 
>do.

That's a good idea in theory - just doing high-level policy  
(narrowly defined) and leaving implementation (not so narrow) to  
technical experts.  But theory and practice are the same thing 
_only_ in theory.

In practice, when all the implementation details have been sorted  
out by "technical experts", you may wake up and find yourself  
confronted in an unpleasant way with the practical consequences of 
Lawrence Lessig's notion of architecture: Code is law.   
Implementation _is_ policy.  (Not always, but frequently enough.)

One very instructive example was given by Lessig during the Berkman  
Center's ILAW conference; I wasn't there, but you can find excellent 
notes on the net, see, for instance, 
<http://www.corante.com/copyfight/20020701.shtml#2205>:

	Architecture in cyberspace is a regulator. Think about it 
	first in real space.

	Robert Moses was a public administrator in New York. He 
	wanted to keep society segregated. The law changed; 
	segregation was outlawed.  But he found a way to keep 
	beaches segregated. Build some roads with low bridges across 
	them; buses can't drive on them. Those who use public 
	transportation were effectively kept away: "naturally." It  
	achieves its effect non-transparently. 

To give an example in the ICANN context, I suggest that you compare  
the suggested implementation of WHOIS services in GNR's original  
.name proposal to the agreement which came out of the  
"implementation" process, and spend some thoughts on the question  
who benefitted from the outcome in question.  Hint: There's a 
trivial and a non-trivial part to this.

Applied to what you wrote about transfers, "implementation" of your  
"policy" could come out with about anything between "just transfer"  
and "require notarized [by US consulate or embassy] confirmation 
 from registrant".  The _actual_ policy would be found in the 
implementation.

In more practical terms, the transfers policy we are going to see at 
some point in the future has to strike a balance between denying  
the transfer (when there is insufficient evidence that the request  
is genuine) and allowing it (when the evidence is sufficient).  The  
current policy contains one possible balance.  It seems to be based  
on the assumption that registrars are competing in a fair manner.

Obviously, that assumption was extremely naive.

So there are two problems to be solved: 1. Find the right balance.   
2. Make sure it's enforceable and, if possible, verifiable even when 
registrars don't compete in a fair manner.

That's actually a tough job, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of  
the more powerful players wouldn't have an interest in actually  
arriving at such a policy.  The most interesting question becomes,  
for this reason, whether or not the transfers problem can even be  
solved with the current framework.
- -- 
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: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 21:15:16 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfers and the Policy-Development Process

Thomas, 

It is clear that the implementation process cannot proceed in an 
unaccountable vaccuum. You are correct in asserting that "Code is Law", that 
we should properly fear code that might be manipulated, and that we cannot 
blindly trust those that formulate such implementations without proper checks 
and balances...  even so, I do note that the FCC does manage to handle 
implementation concerns in a fairly straight-forward manner with processes 
that call for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a public comment period on the 
implementational details, etc. -- it can be done (even without the formal 
rigidity of the Administrative Procedures Act).

And yes, there are proposals even for reform of the FCC itself... one such 
proposal which called for even greater transparency is noted at 
http://www.tiaonline.org/policy/fcc_reform.cfm

My point is that the DNSO is chartered primarily to develop and recommend 
substantive policies.  That is its role.  The role of implementing policy 
advice belongs to another group, the Executive branch -- the President and 
his Staff.  But perhaps you are saying that we spend so much time on 
implementation concerns because we just don't trust the staff to act in our 
best interests... you may be right.  I guess our goal should be to establish 
ways to regulate the implementation process as well as to better define the 
policy-recommending process.

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

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

Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 23:01:51 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] something for the WHOIS committee?

Thomas,  

I found the following entry to be rather amusing -- the "registrant" is a 
website, and the email address is unabashedly falsified.  The "registrant" 
however does seem to offer wild card and multiple keyword searching...

Registrant:
 WhoisReport.com
 2225 109th AVE NE
 Bellevue, WA 98004
 US

 Domain Name: DOMAINWORLDWIDE.COM

 Administrative Contact:
    Hostmaster, Domain  [email-masked]
    Please visit the website if you need to contact us or call.
    We do not post email in the whois because of spam.
    NA, WA 00000
    US
    206-337-0652

 Technical Contact:
    Hostmaster, Domain  [email-masked]
    Please visit the website if you need to contact us or call.
    We do not post email in the whois because of spam.
    NA, WA 00000
    US
    206-337-0652

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

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

Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 20:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] something for the WHOIS committee?

Danny,

I don't see how you can post this entry with out even acknoleging the
issue of spam and how serious spam is, and the link between whois mining
and spam.

maybe you don't get over a thousand UCE messages a day...

- -rick

On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> Thomas,
>
> I found the following entry to be rather amusing -- the "registrant" is a
> website, and the email address is unabashedly falsified.  The "registrant"
> however does seem to offer wild card and multiple keyword searching...
>
> Registrant:
>  WhoisReport.com
>  2225 109th AVE NE
>  Bellevue, WA 98004
>  US
>
>  Domain Name: DOMAINWORLDWIDE.COM
>
>  Administrative Contact:
>     Hostmaster, Domain  [email-masked]
>     Please visit the website if you need to contact us or call.
>     We do not post email in the whois because of spam.
>     NA, WA 00000
>     US
>     206-337-0652
>
>  Technical Contact:
>     Hostmaster, Domain  [email-masked]
>     Please visit the website if you need to contact us or call.
>     We do not post email in the whois because of spam.
>     NA, WA 00000
>     US
>     206-337-0652
>
> Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
> --
> 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: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 22:12:28 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfers and the Policy-Development Process

Danny and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Thomas,
>
> It is clear that the implementation process cannot proceed in an
> unaccountable vaccuum.

  No kidding!  Of course it cannot.  However, this seem to be the method
that the now new ICANN reform process is to proceed along...

> You are correct in asserting that "Code is Law", that
> we should properly fear code that might be manipulated, and that we cannot
> blindly trust those that formulate such implementations without proper checks
> and balances...  even so, I do note that the FCC does manage to handle
> implementation concerns in a fairly straight-forward manner with processes
> that call for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a public comment period on the
> implementational details, etc. -- it can be done (even without the formal
> rigidity of the Administrative Procedures Act).

  Some Code is law, some is not.  Hence such a simplistic statement is
nor entirely accurate.  Policies that are not codified in law as a type of
"Code" is not law, but simply a set of policies...

  Indeed you are quite correct that the FCC does a pretty good job
in determining policy for that agency as a set of rules/policies that
have the full support of the "Executive Branch" of the US government.
This however is not a good comparison, and therefore not relevant to
ICANN and/or any policies that it may come up with.  That is the
DOC/NTIA that is required to enforce those policies.  However
with ICANN and the White Paper, ICANN has the first line of
oversight as well as determining those policies in the structure of
the White Paper and MoU.  Now, we all here know to one extent
or another that the ICANN BOD and staff have not honored those
two contractual obligations (White Paper and MoU)...  Hence
making many of their recommended policies of questionable legitimacy
or validity.

>
>
> And yes, there are proposals even for reform of the FCC itself... one such
> proposal which called for even greater transparency is noted at
> http://www.tiaonline.org/policy/fcc_reform.cfm
>
> My point is that the DNSO is chartered primarily to develop and recommend
> substantive policies.  That is its role.  The role of implementing policy
> advice belongs to another group, the Executive branch -- the President and
> his Staff.  But perhaps you are saying that we spend so much time on
> implementation concerns because we just don't trust the staff to act in our
> best interests... you may be right.  I guess our goal should be to establish
> ways to regulate the implementation process as well as to better define the
> policy-recommending process.

  Good points here Danny.  But lets not also forget or perhaps overlook
that the ICANN BOD is made up in part of members that do not belong
there, i.e. Boardsquatters, and the DNSO is shy several "Constituencies"
as well.  Hence perhaps that any current DNSO policies that have been
determined to this point in time are of, yet again, questionable legitimacy.

>
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 05:37:34 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] something for the WHOIS committee?

On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, at 23:01 [=GMT-0400], [email-masked] wrote:

> I found the following entry to be rather amusing -- the "registrant" is a
> website,

I would say, it is a domain name. Not that uncommon, compare, e.g.:

Registrant:
Amazon.com, Inc (AMAZON-DOM)
   Legal Dept, P.O. Box 81226
   Seattle, WA 98108-1226
   US

   Domain Name: AMAZON.COM

> and the email address is unabashedly falsified.

Have you tried it? I would advise against that, for I guess your email
address might then be added automagically to a spamfilter list.

> The "registrant"
> however does seem to offer wild card and multiple keyword searching...
>
> Registrant:
>  WhoisReport.com
>  2225 109th AVE NE
>  Bellevue, WA 98004
>  US
>
>  Domain Name: DOMAINWORLDWIDE.COM
>
>  Administrative Contact:
>     Hostmaster, Domain  [email-masked]
>     Please visit the website if you need to contact us or call.
>     We do not post email in the whois because of spam.
>     NA, WA 00000
>     US
>     206-337-0652

[...]

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

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

Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 23:39:49 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] something for the WHOIS committee?

Rick,

There probably should be a way of honoring the Advisory posted at 
http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-10may02.htm while still 
preventing data mining.  Isn't it at all possible for registrars to convert 
an email address into a GIF or JPEG format to thwart current automated mining 
practices?  It seems to me that everyone would appreciate that type of a 
service...

- --
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 #1380
*************************