Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1386
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, August 23 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1386

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:49:55 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GNSO policy development chart

Dear all,

here is an (inofficial) chart of the GNSO policy development process
according to the Names Policy Development Process Assistance Group 
recommendation:

  http://www.icannchannel.de/gnsopdp1.pdf (95 kB, 3 pages)

If anyone has corrections or comments, please drop me a line!

Best regards,
/// Alexander

PS -- for the record:
>Re: [ga] Where are all the reports?

Here are two of them:
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/npdpag-report-21aug02.htm
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/alacag-report-19aug02.htm

- --
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, 22 Aug 2002 09:16:09 -0400
From: "Judith Oppenheimer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] a few moments of your valuable time, please

August 22, 2002

Nancy J. Victory
Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information
United States Department of Commerce
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Room 4898
Washington, D.C. 20230

Dear Assistant Secretary Victory:

Please take a moment to read
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=908&mode=&order=0 (copied below
for your convenience) by Professor Jonathan Weinberg.

It is one of the most concise and spot-on summations of ICANN's At Large
activity that I've seen to date.  Thank you in advance for your time and
attention.

Sincerely,

Judith Oppenheimer
recently elected to supervisory panel of icannatlarge.com
http://JudithOppenheimer.com
160 East 26 Street, New York, NY 10010
212 684-7210

cc:  icannatlarge.com
      DNSO General Assembly
      ICANNWatch

ICANN's At-Large Assistance Group (ALAG) has just released its report [
http://log.does-not-exist.org/archive-0208.html#02082014071029845261 ]
proposing an at-large structure for ICANN.

For those of you who've lost your scorecards: After the ICANN Board in
Accra trashed the report of the blue-chip At-Large Study Organization,
which had called for the creation of an at-large supporting organization
electing Board members (as had ICANN's Membership Advisory Committee, its
Membership Implementation Task Force, the NAIS study, etc., etc.[
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03486.html ]), and as at-large
groups nonetheless had the temerity to self-organize, ICANN midwived the
creation of the new At-Large Organizing Committee [
http://www.at-large.org/ ], led by Esther Dyson and Denise Michels. After
that body too called for [
http://www.at-large.org/submission-to-evolution-and-reform-cmt.htm ]
"dedicated At-Large seats on the Board," ICANN created still another group,
to provide "implementation recommendations" for the Blueprint's rejection
of at-large Board seats. (Hans Klein's masterly explication of the
ever-shifting at-large alphabet soup is here [
http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/cyber-fed/Number_14.html ].)

The new group -- the ALAG, consisting of Esther Dyson, Denise Michel,
Gabriel Pi�eiro, Tommi Karttaavi, Peter M. Shane, N�ria de la Fuente
Teixid�, Edmundo Valenti, Vittorio Bertola, and Izumi Aizu -- has now
issued its report (part 1 here [
http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0208/msg00886.html ], part 2 here [
http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0208/msg00886.html ]). The document
notes that it is a response to the ERC's request for Blueprint
implementation recommendations, and that its recommendations do not
represent -- indeed, are contrary to -- "its members' preferred approach to
individual user (At-Large) participation or representation within ICANN."

In a nutshell: ICANN would create an At-Large Advisory Committee,
"available to provide advice and guidance to the Board and to other
organizations within ICANN." ICANN would ensure that the ALAC gets
"appropriate notice of upcoming and pending policy discussions and
decisions, to ensure adequate opportunity for At-Large input." The ALAC
would appoint a non-voting liaison to the Board, five delegates to the
Nominating Committee, and liaisons to the supporting organization councils
and the other advisory committees. ICANN would "review At-Large involvement
after a full year and consider providing At-Large with full representation
on the Board."

ALAC would sit atop a conclave of pre-existing organizations such as
icannatlarge.com, local ISOC chapters, public-interest organizations, and
local computer user groups. These organizations would be grouped into five
regional bodies, which would send representatives to regional councils. The
regional councils would in turn send delegates to the fifteen-member ALAC
and to ICANN's Nominating Committee. "To accommodate the ERC's wish to have
the NomCom appoint some of the ALAC's members," a third of the ALAC seats
would be filled by the NomCom rather than the member organizations. At some
point in the unspecified future, members of the ALAC constituent
organizations would participate in elections to choose ALAC members.

Make you feel warm and fuzzy all over? The ALAG had some good people on it,
and, plainly, some ALAG members worked quite hard and in good faith to
develop the best possible plan, subject to the constraints of the
Blueprint.

Just as plainly, though, those constraints are devastating. The main
accomplishment of the Blueprint is that it eliminates the At-Large as part
of ICANN's actual decisional structure. Even the best set of implementation
recommendations for that plan can't make the proverbial silk purse out of
the Blueprint's sow's ear.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----------
Judith Oppenheimer
http://JudithOppenheimer.com
http://ICBTollFreeNews.com
http://WhoSells800.com
212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----------
Visit 1-800 AFTA, http://www.1800afta.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, 22 Aug 2002 11:36:09 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] GNSO policy development chart

At 12:49 PM 8/22/2002 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>Dear all,
>
>here is an (inofficial) chart of the GNSO policy development process
>according to the Names Policy Development Process Assistance Group
>recommendation:
>
>   http://www.icannchannel.de/gnsopdp1.pdf (95 kB, 3 pages)
>
>If anyone has corrections or comments, please drop me a line!
>
>Best regards,
>/// Alexander
>

Alexander,

Thank you for the excellent presentation!

While I respect the experience and appreciate the recommendations of the 
Names Policy Development Process Assistance Group, I do have one 
comment/concern:  ten days may not be enough time to advance or refine 
final reports after the public comment period using either approach.

My suggestion is to create a loophole which enables the group to have an 
extra ten days (or more time) for situations where well-presented revisions 
may need more than ten days only to be developed.  I realize this may 
create instances where completed presentations can not happen during face 
to face meetings; however, we can certainly devise a solution for this with 
the understanding we may create a better process/recommendation.

:)

~k

- --
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, 22 Aug 2002 18:01:03 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GNSO policy development chart

- --=======3FAC14AE=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-B396E0E; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Alex,
I do not doubt that this document is interesting and represents a lof of 
efforts. I do not even have the gusto to read. I suggest you have a look at 
real internet serious documents:
RFC 920 : rules the Internet name space since 1984
RFC 1591 : rules the Internt international management for years
Now please compare with the Joe Sims strategy originated documents.

Just the size and the number. The day ICANN can speak the same 
language/style as IETF they will interest us. A lean ICANN is the target, 
it starts with terse and scarce documentation, being clear and to the fact. 
Just for it to be understood and usefull.

Otherwise it is just smoke screening and delayng tactics. I do not think we 
are interested.

I am interested in :
- - DNS.2/DNS+ specs for a more stable, secure and open internet and a 
namespace concertance.
- - a serious, universal and stable access to internet names and related services
- - an URL strategy maching the needs of the users
- - a revision of the network architecture to match the real needs of today 
and tomorrow
- - the supprot of standalone user stations and of virtual circuit switch
- - the fight gainst the digital divide (hardware), control (sofware), 
dominance (brainware) and exposure (privacy and right to information 
presciption).

I am not really sure we are interested in Joe Sims' deliria.
jfc

At 12:49 22/08/02, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>Dear all,
>
>here is an (inofficial) chart of the GNSO policy development process
>according to the Names Policy Development Process Assistance Group
>recommendation:
>
>   http://www.icannchannel.de/gnsopdp1.pdf (95 kB, 3 pages)
>
>If anyone has corrections or comments, please drop me a line!
>
>Best regards,
>/// Alexander
>
>
>PS -- for the record:
> >Re: [ga] Where are all the reports?
>
>Here are two of them:
>http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/npdpag-report-21aug02.htm
>http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/alacag-report-19aug02.htm
>
>--
>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

- --=======3FAC14AE=======--

- --
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, 22 Aug 2002 12:43:07 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrar Code of Conduct

Jon and all assembly members,

  Thank you Jon for pointing this important information out
to all of us.  The actual code of conduct for DNS.BE is
here: http://www.domain-ethix.be/eng/COC/coc.html
It is interesting reading and places the emphasis of
responsibility to the registrant on the Registrar, which is
where it should be...

Jon Lawrence wrote:

> Note that the Belgians have also recently released a code of conduct for
> .be.
>
> See: http://www.udrplaw.net/ExclusiveNews12.htm
>
> regards
> jon
>
> >-- Original Message --
> >From: [email-masked]
> >Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:59:20 EDT
> >Subject: Re: [ga] Registrar Code of Conduct
> >To: [email-masked]
> >CC: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> >
> >
> >Rick,
> >
> >Thanks for the feedback on prior registrar efforts to establish a Code
> of
> >
> >Conduct.  Now that the .AU folks have released their comprehensive Code
> of
> >
> >Practice http://auda.org.au/policy/code-committee-2002/final-code.pdf
>
> >perhaps your fellow registrars will have occasion to review this document
> >and
> >will take your own efforts another step forward in the right direction.
> >--
> >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

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: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:59:15 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GNSO policy development chart

Alex, Kristy and all assembly members,

  I concur with Kristy on her concern.  I would also request that
an HTML version of this be provided.  Do you have one Alex?

Kristy McKee wrote:

> At 12:49 PM 8/22/2002 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
> >Dear all,
> >
> >here is an (inofficial) chart of the GNSO policy development process
> >according to the Names Policy Development Process Assistance Group
> >recommendation:
> >
> >   http://www.icannchannel.de/gnsopdp1.pdf (95 kB, 3 pages)
> >
> >If anyone has corrections or comments, please drop me a line!
> >
> >Best regards,
> >/// Alexander
> >
>
> Alexander,
>
> Thank you for the excellent presentation!
>
> While I respect the experience and appreciate the recommendations of the
> Names Policy Development Process Assistance Group, I do have one
> comment/concern:  ten days may not be enough time to advance or refine
> final reports after the public comment period using either approach.
>
> My suggestion is to create a loophole which enables the group to have an
> extra ten days (or more time) for situations where well-presented revisions
> may need more than ten days only to be developed.  I realize this may
> create instances where completed presentations can not happen during face
> to face meetings; however, we can certainly devise a solution for this with
> the understanding we may create a better process/recommendation.
>
> :)
>
> ~k
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:16:18 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: General Counsel 2nd WLS analysis

General Counsel's Second Analysis of VeriSign Global Registry Services' 
Request for Amendment to Registry Agreement 
(http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-22aug02.htm)

Excerpts:

  Should the VGRS be permitted to offer some form of WLS?

  [...]
  The approach followed in the case of .name [second-level domain e-mail
  service] suggests that the WLS should be allowed, thereby giving 
  consumers an additional option, provided there are appropriate 
  safeguards in place to prevent the registry operator from abusing 
  its sole-source position to the detriment of consumers.
  [...]

  If so, what conditions, if any, should be required?

  Assuming VGRS is permitted to offer some form of WLS, the question 
  arises what conditions (if any) should be required. In its report, the 
  DNSO task force suggested several, and some others have been agreed 
  by VGRS:

  1. The WLS should only be introduced after the Redemption Grace Period 
     is in place.  [...]
  2. No preferential treatment should be given to existing SnapNames 
     "SnapBack" reservations. [...]
  3. Avoidance of registrar preferences through advance knowledge of 
     deletion. [...]
  4. Transparency of reservations [...]
  5. Pricing [...]
     The price VGRS now proposes to charge for WLS reservations is US$24 
     per year (this is reduced from the US$40 it originally proposed), and 
     in view of the limited time of the trial, the uncertain volume of 
     reservations that will be sold, and need to amortize start-up costs 
     over one year, the proposed price appears to be plausibly cost-based 
     (accounting for the risk of limited consumer interest). [...]
   6. Trial period [...]

- --
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, 22 Aug 2002 15:44:43 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

The Names Policy Development Process Assistance Group has proposed 
institutionalizing an abysmal failure -- the Task Force Concept.  These task 
forces will continue to produce poor policy guidance, only now they will do 
so even faster. 

We will continue to receive pompous self-serving constituency reports from 
groups like the BC that will state "The BC is in large part in agreement 
with… or, the BC believes… or, the BC supports…" with absolutely no 
documentation of BC discussions on the issue.  This constituency, like 
several others, including the gTLDs and the ISPs, refuse to maintain a 
publicly archived discussion list.   They do not believe in abiding by the 
ICANN Bylaws on transparency "to the maximum extent feasible".  They believe 
that they can continue to flaunt the Bylaws even while criticizing the Board 
for its failure to conduct fully open and transparent Board meetings.

Other constituencies, such as the NCDNHC and the IPC, will have their Council 
members tender remarks such as "It is the position of…" even when there is 
absolutely no record of any dialogue on their lists relative to the topic at 
hand.  Neither will they post the minutes of their teleconferences, nor the 
record of any discussion held by their excom or adcom --  in short, we will 
continue to see nothing but more of the same, only now at an expedited pace.

The truth of the matter is that, with rare exceptions (such as within the 
Registrar Constituency), discussion is not happening at the constituency 
level.  And frankly, of what value is a constituency if its members don't 
participate?  An organization sends in its membership dues, and then we don't 
hear from them until they decide to take a junket to an ICANN meeting at some 
interesting venue, and even then these folks have little to contribute since 
they haven't kept up with the day-to-day activities of the organization.  
Sure, it adds to the prestige of the organization to state on their website 
that they are member of such-and-such an ICANN constituency, but of what 
value is it to us?  

How many times have we heard the BC extol the virtues of one their members, 
the International Chamber of Commerce, that "outreaches to over 1.5 million 
companies worldwide"?  Yet never once have we heard the opinions of this 
group on anything.  No position papers have ever been submitted, there is no 
record of any commentary, and no indication that this group does anything 
other than remit a membership payment to the BC.

Other constituencies that are more transparent with a membership roster that 
includes almost two hundred organizations, such as the NCDNHC, are equally 
perpetrating a fraud.  They have almost no "paying members", and according to 
the recently published ledger of DNSO Contributions, two out of three of 
their current Council representatives haven't even made a membership payment 
on behalf of their own organizations.  By what right do they thereby claim to 
be a constituency member, or for that matter to be able to "represent" the 
constituency if they are not even a member in good standing?

Only 23 organizations out of 187 in the NCDNHC made a membership payment 
according to the ledger.  They don't pay, and most don't participate in any 
dialogue at the constituency level, and when they do it's never on topics 
that directly deal with DNSO policy issues.  When was the last time you saw 
any NCDNHC members discuss WLS, or Transfers, or Deletes, or IDN on their 
discussion list?  

Discussion of policy issues is in fact happening not at the constituency 
level, but rather at a different locale, the DNSO General Assembly.  Further, 
participants in these discussions are almost never members of any given 
constituency, and yet these interested and involved members of the community 
are the ones being excluded from direct and equal participation in the Names 
Policy Development Process.  

This is not Reform.  This is again denying representation to the broader 
At-Large community in favor of entrenched special interest groups.  

If these groups would actually participate in the task force process, then 
there might be some basis for proposing modifications to the current system.  
But we have seen the record of their involvement.  Just look at the transfers 
task force, or the IDN task force as examples that highlight the 
non-participation of constituency conscripts.  These are folks that don't 
want to be there, that won't participate in any meaningful fashion, and that 
are stuck on these TFs because their constituency had to assign somebody to 
be there.

A task force of six members, when half won't participate, is next to useless. 
 When the task force is expanded to two members per constituency, and the 
constituencies still fail to participate (as has already been noted), this is 
a sign that the entire process is defective, and no amount of tinkering will 
fix the situation when some constituencies just don't want to participate.  
In many cases, several of these constituencies just don't have an actual 
membership that is willing to do anything more than show up at an occasional 
ICANN meeting.  Why do you think that the ISPs always have the same members 
on every single task force?  It's probably because their constituency is as 
much of a sham as is the BC constituency - they don't have an involved 
membership, only a few representatives that are stuck on every single 
committee since no one else is willing to do the job.

We have all seen what happens to public comments submitted to task forces.  
We have sufficient proof that they are not even being read.  The opinions of 
the public are of no consequence to those that represent special interest 
groups.  One way or another, only their views will prevail in this system as 
there is no one to advocate for the public view in this process.  Without an 
advocate or representative, the comments of the public will continue to 
wither on the vine, and ICANN will blissfully continue to fail to understand 
why the public is so incensed.  

Participation means nothing if there is no representation.  The views of the 
broader community will continue to be ignored as special interest groups will 
continue to apply their own unique SPIN on the public voice.

This Task Force process is as illegitimate as the Reform itself and it is not 
surprising that Hans Kraaijenbrink and Joe Sims participated in the 
development of this perversion.

There was a time when we believed in the utility of the Open Working Group, 
the collaboration of the At-Large Community with the constituencies in a 
mutual effort to arrive at a consensus-based solution.  This has now been 
replaced with a system that excludes the At-Large, excludes the General 
Assembly, and which continues to advantage incumbent interests at the expense 
of all those that are not properly represented in the ICANN process.  

This plan will, of course, be adopted by the Board, because they have already 
spoon-fed their opinions to the assistance group.  It's just another sign of 
how perverse this organization has become.  The bottom-up is not to be 
trusted to draft their own recommendations… they need to be coached by the 
ICANN Board and its outside Counsel.

This is no more than a charade being played out to entertain the DoC.  I 
can't wait to hear Mary Hewitt's comments on how wonderful it is that ICANN's 
Blueprint is being supported by so many that have come forth with 
implementation suggestions.

Looks like its time to write to the DoC yet again.

- --
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, 22 Aug 2002 13:28:35 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

[email-masked] wrote:
> We will continue to receive pompous self-serving constituency reports from
> groups like the BC that will state "The BC is in large part in agreement
> with� or, the BC believes� or, the BC supports�" with absolutely no
> documentation of BC discussions on the issue.

Danny,

The drafting group tried to address this issue head on. If you'll take a
look at what a Constituency Statement is expected to include (and I've
copied the relevant language below), you'll see that documentation of the
consultation process *is required* ("Every Constituency Statement shall
include...") No constituency is required to consult, but evidence of
consultations, or none, will certainly go to the weight that any
constituency report should carry. I hope that goes some way toward answering
your concerns.

     -- Bret

(d) Collection of Information

(i) Constituency Statements. The Representatives will each be responsible
for soliciting the position of their constituency, at a minimum, and other
comments as each Representative deems appropriate, regarding the issue under
consideration. This position and other comments, as applicable, should be
submitted in a formal statement to the task force chair (each, a
"Constituency Statement") within thirty-five (35) days after initiation of
the PDP. Every Constituency Statement shall include at least the following:

....

(3) A clear statement of how the constituency arrived at its position(s).
Specifically, the statement should detail specific constituency
meetings/teleconferences/or other means of deliberating an issue, and a list
of all members who participated or otherwise submitted their views;

....

- --
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, 22 Aug 2002 13:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: General Counsel 2nd WLS analysis

Hello,

Comparing WLS to something like the .name optional e-mail system is a
joke. By its very nature, WLS trumps competition. When the General
Counsel of ICANN is engaging in this kind of "stretch" to justify WLS,
things don't look good. Time to get the lawyers ready, methinks....

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

- --- Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 	
> General Counsel's Second Analysis of VeriSign Global Registry
> Services' 
> Request for Amendment to Registry Agreement 
> (http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-22aug02.htm)
> 
> Excerpts:
> 
>   Should the VGRS be permitted to offer some form of WLS?
> 
>   [...]
>   The approach followed in the case of .name [second-level domain
> e-mail
>   service] suggests that the WLS should be allowed, thereby giving 
>   consumers an additional option, provided there are appropriate 
>   safeguards in place to prevent the registry operator from abusing 
>   its sole-source position to the detriment of consumers.
>   [...]
> 
>   If so, what conditions, if any, should be required?
> 
>   Assuming VGRS is permitted to offer some form of WLS, the question 
>   arises what conditions (if any) should be required. In its report,
> the 
>   DNSO task force suggested several, and some others have been agreed
> 
>   by VGRS:
> 
>   1. The WLS should only be introduced after the Redemption Grace
> Period 
>      is in place.  [...]
>   2. No preferential treatment should be given to existing SnapNames 
>      "SnapBack" reservations. [...]
>   3. Avoidance of registrar preferences through advance knowledge of 
>      deletion. [...]
>   4. Transparency of reservations [...]
>   5. Pricing [...]
>      The price VGRS now proposes to charge for WLS reservations is
> US$24 
>      per year (this is reduced from the US$40 it originally
> proposed), and 
>      in view of the limited time of the trial, the uncertain volume
> of 
>      reservations that will be sold, and need to amortize start-up
> costs 
>      over one year, the proposed price appears to be plausibly
> cost-based 
>      (accounting for the risk of limited consumer interest). [...]
>    6. Trial period [...]
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.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: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:58:27 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] GA/ Debate on our good BoD members/who?

Let us keep this going.

This is a fine forum for debate and discussion.
I understand Judith's concern for lending an argument if we contribute
but I have to come to the conclusion that while that may be a problem,
it is not a reason to discontinue contribution.  Some books are written
and not even published until the authors death due to politics.
(oh I am aware of vacations in august, I am not talking about a lull I
am talking about abandonment)

There are good members on the NC and BoD that appreciate what they learn
from here and good members from here that make sure others hear our
voice.
For many they see the AL.com as an alternative- wrong- it is just
another course in this curriculum.

WLS must be further debated here.
ERC must be further debated here.
WGs vs TFs must be further debated.
The right of unfettered communication must be debated.

But which BoD members should be supported and others tossed is paramount
to the DNSO.
Based solely upon how they apply standards that effect the
use/cost/accessability and reliability of Domain Names.
ccTLD issues effect this mightily and must be addressed.  This CoC
movement is out of some closed doors or very private meetings.  Which
may be right or wrong as the are sovereigns.

Sincerely,
Eric

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

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 17:11:44 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

Sure, Brett.  Just like timelines *are required* under the current bylaws, 
and just like a notice of a Board Special Meeting is *required* 14 days in 
advance... 

These are folks that break and pervert the rules whenever they have a mind to 
do so.  Just look at what's going on in the current Transfers Task Force with 
Marilyn pushing the TF into the area of Deletes for which it has no specific 
Council authorization to enter.  You think a few words will force the BC to 
become open and transparent?  Let them start by archiving their mailing list 
discussions so that we can see a commitment to transparency and to the 
Bylaws.  Otherwise, all your pretty words are just so much wasted time and 
effort as they will find yet another way to pontificate and conceal their 
lack of constituency discussion and involvement.  

You know these people... dissembling is an art form in their hands.  
- --
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, 22 Aug 2002 16:51:31 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: [ga] WLS Suggestion

What concerns me about the proposed WLS solution is not knowing what my 
chances are for securing the WLS position for all our company and client 
domains, especially the more popular ones.

If this WLS process must be implemented, why not offer the Domain Name 
Registrant the "opportunity" to pay more money per year to ensure that they 
also have claim to their domain(s) within the WLS database.

Perhaps everyone Current Registrant should automatically be entered as the 
WLS Registrant for free for the first year.

The System (Registry/Registrar) could charge a annual "Insurance Renewal 
Fee" that more closely reflects the cost of the service on an opt-in basis 
which graciously allows the current registrant the option to renew prior to 
or at re-registration time.

In the instance where a domain name Registrant chose not to use the 
Insurance the domain name would then be made available to the WLS database 
and applicants could more reasonably be charged a higher fee to Register to 
be the Registrar of the domain name at the WLS level.

:)

~k

- --
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, 22 Aug 2002 15:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Kristy McKee wrote:

>
>
> What concerns me about the proposed WLS solution is not knowing what my
> chances are for securing the WLS position for all our company and client
> domains, especially the more popular ones.
>
> If this WLS process must be implemented, why not offer the Domain Name
> Registrant the "opportunity" to pay more money per year to ensure that they
> also have claim to their domain(s) within the WLS database.

in any other industry it would be
called "balck mail" not an "opportunity"

- -rick

Rick Wesson
CTO, Registrars Constituency

- --
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, 22 Aug 2002 15:09:19 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: General Counsel 2nd WLS analysis

George,

Can we really legislate technology development?  Or do you think a judge
can help?
Me thinks perhaps just the small "simpleton" techies in my office can route
around the problem you describe here.  It seems that even as dumb as I am
"i call the systems robotics for some stupid reason" we can prevent such
problems even if they implement WLS.

Now if you are talking of a private individual user that does not
understand such things that is different.
How do we protect the truly ignorant?, and by that I mean those without
specialized knowledge that do not seek advice.  I am afraid no one in this
fora has even suggested a solution to that question.

At a certain point we must go Caveat Emptor.
(to latin hesitant, buyer beware)

Hey you got a solution for my dotcommoners?  Oops, we don't register names
under our own name, we go to lawyers and Doctors and Stockbrockers and ISPs
for professional services.
WLS is a red herring - the pros can beat it and amateurs have no business
in dotCOM.

Sincerely,
eric

(actually I am playing the role of antagonist without full conviction, my
mental jury is still out)

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Comparing WLS to something like the .name optional e-mail system is a
> joke. By its very nature, WLS trumps competition. When the General
> Counsel of ICANN is engaging in this kind of "stretch" to justify WLS,
> things don't look good. Time to get the lawyers ready, methinks....
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1386
*************************