Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1389
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, August 23 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1389

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

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

OK, you (and everyone else) convinced me.

I am glad that I raised the question and that we all had this discussion.

One thing that had me fooled was the hedging of the DNSO recommendation.  
It was too easy to see the hedge and overlook the real decision and
recommendation.

		--karl--

- --
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 22:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

Hi Ray,

- --- Ray Fassett <[email-masked]> wrote:
> George Kirikos writes:
> 
> "It is Verisign that is asking to CHANGE the terms of the contract
> (via its
> change of the domain allocation method, and the increase in
> pricing)."
> 
> George:
> 
> Maybe I am mistaken, but I have been under the impression that
> Verisign is
> trying to force ICANN to abide by its contract i.e. state a position
> about
> a proposed "new registry service" and then seek remedy from there if
> necessary.  I take it you do not interpret things this way...looking
> for
> clarification.

See Chuck's email here:

http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-17apr02.htm

"I would like to request amendments to appendix G"

amendments = changes ;)

Any attempt by Verisign to make a change that alters the domain name
allocation method (there are other registry services which would not
affect domain name allocation methods), triggers the clauses that
affects registrars as I earlier pointed out at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00303.html

If Verisign had proposed offering high availability nameservers, or
high security domain locking, or identity verification services, or
giving out cookies with every domain, the clauses that affect
registrars in their own agreements with ICANN wouldn't have been
triggered. Thankfully, Louis Touton's own admission in his 

http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-22aug02.htm

analysis that WLS "involves a change in the name-allocation algorithm"
will be used to enforce the registrar agreement, which mentions
"principles for allocation of Registered Names" in paragraph 4.2.4.
Section 4.3 specifies the manner in which those policies must be
established, and WLS would fail as it is not a "Consensus Policy", and
registrars can challenge it on that basis.

Registrars entered into a contract with ICANN, and that clause protects
the registrars from non-consensus based policies that would hurt their
business. Thus, opponents of WLS can use that to avoid the tyranny of
an oppressive dictatorship that has not met the "consensus" standard.
Not only has WLS failed to reach a consensus in favour of it -- it has
had a consensus vote against it.

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 03:42:37 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

Karl Auerbach wrote:

>OK, you (and everyone else) convinced me.
>
>I am glad that I raised the question and that we all had this discussion.
>
>One thing that had me fooled was the hedging of the DNSO recommendation.  
>It was too easy to see the hedge and overlook the real decision and
>recommendation.
>

There we go!  Whew!  You had us worried, Karl.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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, 23 Aug 2002 09:23:28 +0100
From: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS Suggestion

It has been long enough that I've been silent, this letter frightens me
Mr Auerbach, to say the least.

It seems in your busy schedule you have not had enough time to read the
opinions and expert knowledge that has been shown on this list for one
by a lot of people, most of whom supported you.

I suggest you read back on the topic, it can not be that hard, a lot is
gathered on sites, and you will without any doubt come to the conclusion
that whatever read herrings you are reading now, they do not nearly
describe the can of worms you are opening by supporting this proposal.

I urge you to reconsider supporting the proposal.

Kind regards

Abel Wisman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> On Behalf Of Karl Auerbach
> Sent: 23 August 2002 00:01
> To: Kristy McKee
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion
> 
> 
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Kristy McKee wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Presumably under WLS they have that - they simply buy into WLS.
> 
> I have a question for you (and everyone on the GA list):
> 
> I've been wrestling back and forth on the WLS issue.  I don't 
> like giving
> NSI/Verisign yet another boon but I also don't like ICANN being a
> regulator of ever increasing size.
> 
> This is a tough question and there are equities on all sides.
> 
> My feeling is that I at the board meeting tomorrow morning that I will
> vote in favor of WLS but only on the condition that there are 
> provisions
> that require the current registrant to know of the existance (and
> identity) of WLS entries placed on his/here domain name.  That, to my
> mind, helps restore the balance of information and lets all 
> parties to the
> registration agreement attempt to optimize their actions.
> 
> (It may not be black letter contract law, but I do feel that 
> those who are
> parties to a contract ought not to be unreasonably manipulative of one
> another - particularly when the contracts are of an adhesive 
> quality [and
> more particularly when the public isn't allowed onto the 
> regulatory body
> that establishes many of the contractual terms].  And in the 
> case of WLS I
> have always found it distasteful that the registry, who has 
> an indirect
> contractual relationship with the registrant, might hold back 
> information
> from the registrant that could be of value to the registrant.)
> 
> This condition on the casting of my vote in favor is in 
> addition to things
> like the pre-existance of the grace period mechanisms for at least 6
> months, etc etc.)
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> 		--karl--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:51:41 +0100
From: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS Suggestion

Ok ok I finally post and find out I am late as usual, nonetheless I
would like to thank you for reconsidering.

And besides that, George, well done as usual :)

Abel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> On Behalf Of Abel Wisman
> Sent: 23 August 2002 09:23
> To: 'Karl Auerbach'; 'Kristy McKee'
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] WLS Suggestion
> 
> 
> It has been long enough that I've been silent, this letter 
> frightens me
> Mr Auerbach, to say the least.
> 
> It seems in your busy schedule you have not had enough time 
> to read the
> opinions and expert knowledge that has been shown on this list for one
> by a lot of people, most of whom supported you.
> 
> I suggest you read back on the topic, it can not be that 
> hard, a lot is
> gathered on sites, and you will without any doubt come to the 
> conclusion
> that whatever read herrings you are reading now, they do not nearly
> describe the can of worms you are opening by supporting this proposal.
> 
> I urge you to reconsider supporting the proposal.
> 
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Abel Wisman
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> > On Behalf Of Karl Auerbach
> > Sent: 23 August 2002 00:01
> > To: Kristy McKee
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Kristy McKee wrote:
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Presumably under WLS they have that - they simply buy into WLS.
> > 
> > I have a question for you (and everyone on the GA list):
> > 
> > I've been wrestling back and forth on the WLS issue.  I don't 
> > like giving
> > NSI/Verisign yet another boon but I also don't like ICANN being a
> > regulator of ever increasing size.
> > 
> > This is a tough question and there are equities on all sides.
> > 
> > My feeling is that I at the board meeting tomorrow morning 
> that I will
> > vote in favor of WLS but only on the condition that there are 
> > provisions
> > that require the current registrant to know of the existance (and
> > identity) of WLS entries placed on his/here domain name.  
> That, to my
> > mind, helps restore the balance of information and lets all 
> > parties to the
> > registration agreement attempt to optimize their actions.
> > 
> > (It may not be black letter contract law, but I do feel that 
> > those who are
> > parties to a contract ought not to be unreasonably 
> manipulative of one
> > another - particularly when the contracts are of an adhesive 
> > quality [and
> > more particularly when the public isn't allowed onto the 
> > regulatory body
> > that establishes many of the contractual terms].  And in the 
> > case of WLS I
> > have always found it distasteful that the registry, who has 
> > an indirect
> > contractual relationship with the registrant, might hold back 
> > information
> > from the registrant that could be of value to the registrant.)
> > 
> > This condition on the casting of my vote in favor is in 
> > addition to things
> > like the pre-existance of the grace period mechanisms for at least 6
> > months, etc etc.)
> > 
> > Any comments?
> > 
> > 		--karl--
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:15:58 +1000
From: "McMeikan, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WLS Suggestion

Hi Karl,
	As the initiator of the anti-WLS petition, I thought I'd say thank
you for your change of heart!

With over 3000 signers from a variety of backgrounds it can be seen that
there are many with many different reasons to oppose WLS.  You have also
heard a few on the GA list :)

I just wanted to point out what made me oppose it as it might help you keep
on the right side of the fence ;)

WLS would effectively grant Verisign (or any other assigned operator of the
system) a monopoly over expiring domains.

Any granting of monopoly powers needs to be very carefully thought out as
monopolies so often lead to abuse.

Having seen complaints by verisign customers showing what amounts to
deceitful intent to refuse transfers and many complaints on timely action,
it became all to easy to see just what sort of abuses a WLS could lead to.

Perhaps in the future there could be an option better than freely competing
waiting lists, but there needs to be sound community support.

Not all damage can be routed around.  I hope that you will represent the
broad wishes of all those who have signed the petition or posted against WLS
on ICANN own forum on the matter.

You may hear some great reason for WLS just before you vote, if you do
remember that it is always easy to grant a monopoly, but very hard to revoke
one.

I hope that you can also extend these thoughts to the other board members.

	cya,	Andrew...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 12:45 PM
> To: George Kirikos
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion
> 
> 
> 
> OK, you (and everyone else) convinced me.
> 
> I am glad that I raised the question and that we all had this 
> discussion.
> 
> One thing that had me fooled was the hedging of the DNSO 
> recommendation.  
> It was too easy to see the hedge and overlook the real decision and
> recommendation.
> 
> 		--karl--
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only.  It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege.  It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party.  If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender.  Thank you.
- --
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, 23 Aug 2002 11:27:51 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS: ICANN should approve it (and be sued for that).

On 2002-08-22 21:45:16 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:

>To: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion
>
>OK, you (and everyone else) convinced me.

I'm not so sure you should be convinced.  

At least my most important concerns about WLS are actually resolved 
in the general counsel's report:

 - The perverse incentives for registrars created by WLS - namely,  
   not extending existing registrations, and letting a WLS  
   subscription ripen - are kind of mitigated by the redemption grace 
   period.

 - The business model to hoard domain names in order to later sell  
   them off through WLS subscriptions (and subsequent "deletion") is  
   addressed by the agreement to prevent sponsoring registrars from 
   placing WLS subscriptions on a domain name in the 60 days before 
   the name expires.  (Note that this restriction is messy and  
   entirely unnecessary when the current registrant wants to place  
   the subscription!)

   At the same time, this removes part of registrars' incentives to
   hoard domain names in order to unfairly compete about WLS  
   subscriptions - delete the name when a subscription is placed  
   through the sponsoring registrar, don't delete it when the  
   subscription is placed through a competitor.  
   
   (Actually, the version of this argument given by Louis in his 
   report is not accurate.)

   Once again, this is not the perfect solution - the correct  
   approach would be to mandate the point of time when registrars  
   send the DELETE command to the registry.

Note that these are genuine policy matters, and clearly within 
ICANN's scope.

The single most important concern which remains - and it's the one  
George and friends are emphasizing - is that WLS may put existing 
registrar-based approaches out of business.  The existing  
used-domain dealers demand that their business models be protected.  
I'm sorry to say this, but they are pretty close to Hollywood's  
crusade against the net in that - I think Bruce Schneier paraphrased 
the latest legislation around intellectual property like this: "They 
are creating a new crime, interference with a business model."

ICANN should not get into the business of prosecuting this "crime"  
in the registy/registrar market - and that's precisely what not  
accepting WLS would mean.  Don't let George's argument fool you,  
when he says that "changing the contract" amounts to "action" and  
"not changing the contract" amounts to a hands-off approach.  I'm 
sorry, George - this is (good, and, it seems, effective ;)  
rhetorics, and not an argument: Hands-off means that you let others  
do what they want.  Normally, that's equivalent to "do nothing".   
However, when to "do nothing" means to forbid an activity, a  
hands-off approach implies rubber-stamp approval.

Of course, this was only half of the argument, so far: I didn't  
address the fact that existing competition would be replaced by a  
_monopoly_.  It's the context in which I believe that protecting  
business models is a good idea and a requirement: When existing,  
lawful business models would be threatened by a new business model  
which can only be implemented as a monopoly.  There are two tests in 
this:

 - Does the new business model necessarily imply a monopoly service? 
   The answer is obviously yes.

 - Are the existing business models lawful?  Can current  
   expired-domain registration services compete without registrars  
   violating their accreditation agreements by letting others  
   control "their" transactions with the registry?  I'm not sure  
   that this question will ever be answered based on information  
   easily accessible to ICANN and the public.  But there are some  
   indications that the answer is "no".  Ups.
   
Given the lack of information, and given that this is a classical  
question for governments and courts to address, I believe that ICANN 
should do precisely that: Leave the question to governments and  
courts, i.e., do not address it in your decision.

Thus, ultimately, I would strongly recommend that ICANN approves  
this service - fully aware of the perspective that it will quite  
likely be sued for this decision.

Finally, there is one relatively deep point to this, well worth the  
board's attention - for the future, because it's too late to address 
this for WLS: It's Steven Heath's question whether new monopoly  
services based on the registry's data should automatically be the  
registry's privilege, or whether these services should be subject to 
a public bidding process.  

I'm not entirely sure whether Louis' argument that the .name 
services set a precedent for this actually works: After all, with 
.name the new service was introduced from the very beginning.  There 
may be some merit to treating services to be added later differently 
than services included in the original TLD concept.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 07:43:49 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

Danny,

I certainly agree with your general theme even if I don't agree with
everything you say.  In my opinion, the group is recommending a perpetuation
of a current failure, just as you say.  Although I am not neccessarily
opposed to the task force concept, I personally think the current
implementation of it is a joke.  But it does make for a good power trip for
certain parties so I fully understand why they like it and want to
perpetuate it.

With regard to gTLD Constituency discussion of issues, speaking just as a
member, I can assure you that we regularly discuss issues before our
representatives take positions for the constituency.  As you have probably
noticed, we are one of the few constituencies that is willing to go against
the flow on task forces and the NC.  That is not because our representatives
are doing their own thing but because they have direction from the
constituency as a whole, in most cases unanimous.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 3:45 PM
> To: [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
> 
- --
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, 23 Aug 2002 08:39:20 -0400
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

Danny,

I think your comments, although highly emotionally charged, seem to point
out a need for a top-down (or in this case bottoms-up) audit of ICANN,
including each of the supporting organizations, constituencies and task
forces.  Your point is clear, how can we expect openness and transparency of
the ICANN Board and staff when we cannot get the same openness and
transparency from the policy groups within ICANN?

As current chair of the gTLD Registry Constituency, you have my commitment
to see what we can do within our own constituency to improve our own
openness and transparency.  I would hope the other constituencies follow
suit. 

Thanks again.

Jeff Neuman

- -----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 7:44 AM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

Danny,

I certainly agree with your general theme even if I don't agree with
everything you say.  In my opinion, the group is recommending a perpetuation
of a current failure, just as you say.  Although I am not neccessarily
opposed to the task force concept, I personally think the current
implementation of it is a joke.  But it does make for a good power trip for
certain parties so I fully understand why they like it and want to
perpetuate it.

With regard to gTLD Constituency discussion of issues, speaking just as a
member, I can assure you that we regularly discuss issues before our
representatives take positions for the constituency.  As you have probably
noticed, we are one of the few constituencies that is willing to go against
the flow on task forces and the NC.  That is not because our representatives
are doing their own thing but because they have direction from the
constituency as a whole, in most cases unanimous.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 3:45 PM
> To: [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
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1389
*************************