Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1391
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, August 24 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1391

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:53:12 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 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.

In retrospect, it probably would have been a good idea if the advisory group
responsible for the recent draft had prepared a more detailed overview of
its thinking. I certainly can't speak for the group, but perhaps this will
help peoplee understand the draft better.

A majority of the group's members (though not all) shared your view that
task forces were too important in the current policy-making scheme. So there
was a deliberate attempt to dilute their importance to the process by making
them boring. As you'll see in the draft, task forces primarily exist to
coordinate data gathering efforts. Mapping out policy concerns and solutions
has been pushed down, in the first instance, from task forces to the
constituencies. Task forces assimilate the constituency reports and the
public comments and then package them for debate in the Council. (Also
remember that in the Blueprint, additional GNSO constituencies are expressly
contemplated. We may well see an individuals constituency, a small business
constituency and/or an academic constituency.) In my view, this is a step
closer to "bottom up" policy development than in the status quo.

Read the draft again with that in mind, and I think you'll see some
significant improvements.

Also, keep in mind that the policy process was greatly constrained by the
Blueprint's requirement that it occur in "60 days or less." We simply
couldn't do it and so recommended a process that will take 95 days or less.
Personally, I'm hard pressed to devise a system that is more bottom up that
could take place on anything close to the Blueprint's tight schedule.

    -- Bret

- --
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 17:03:07 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

Doesn't help my concerns at all Bret.  The bottom line, the GNSO will have
the same basic makeup as the DNSO does.  That hasn't worked and it still
won't.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 4:53 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package
> 
> 
> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> In retrospect, it probably would have been a good idea if the 
> advisory group
> responsible for the recent draft had prepared a more detailed 
> overview of
> its thinking. I certainly can't speak for the group, but 
> perhaps this will
> help peoplee understand the draft better.
> 
> A majority of the group's members (though not all) shared 
> your view that
> task forces were too important in the current policy-making 
> scheme. So there
> was a deliberate attempt to dilute their importance to the 
> process by making
> them boring. As you'll see in the draft, task forces 
> primarily exist to
> coordinate data gathering efforts. Mapping out policy 
> concerns and solutions
> has been pushed down, in the first instance, from task forces to the
> constituencies. Task forces assimilate the constituency 
> reports and the
> public comments and then package them for debate in the Council. (Also
> remember that in the Blueprint, additional GNSO 
> constituencies are expressly
> contemplated. We may well see an individuals constituency, a 
> small business
> constituency and/or an academic constituency.) In my view, 
> this is a step
> closer to "bottom up" policy development than in the status quo.
> 
> Read the draft again with that in mind, and I think you'll see some
> significant improvements.
> 
> Also, keep in mind that the policy process was greatly 
> constrained by the
> Blueprint's requirement that it occur in "60 days or less." We simply
> couldn't do it and so recommended a process that will take 95 
> days or less.
> Personally, I'm hard pressed to devise a system that is more 
> bottom up that
> could take place on anything close to the Blueprint's tight schedule.
> 
>     -- Bret
> 
> 
> 
- --
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 14:04:26 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Doesn't help my concerns at all Bret.  The bottom line, the GNSO will have
> the same basic makeup as the DNSO does.  That hasn't worked and it still
> won't.

What's the alternative then?

     -- Bret

- --
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 17:18:30 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

The gTLD RC reps on the committee with you suggested alternatives.  They
were rejected.  But it certainly doesn't make sense to perpetuate the
current problems that exist.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 5:04 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package
> 
> 
> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > Doesn't help my concerns at all Bret.  The bottom line, the 
> GNSO will have
> > the same basic makeup as the DNSO does.  That hasn't worked 
> and it still
> > won't.
> 
> What's the alternative then?
> 
>      -- Bret
> 
- --
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 16:33:01 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Body snatchers from Verisign have taken over Louis Touton, help!

I know that mentioning this bothers some people, but people
just don't seem to GET IT!

The Inclusive Namespace is STILL out there.

We were here before ICANN

We will be here long after ICANN goes.

If you SWITCH your DNS, either on your client box or your root.cache file,
ICANN LOSES ALL POWER
OVER YOU. Its that simple. The WLS will have no effect or power over on this
side of the fence.

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS TAKE 2 MINUTES to switch.

There are over 10,000 Top-level domains in existence. You can only see about
10 of them
in ICANN-Land.

INS has A REAL Registry and Registrar industry and REAL registrants.

See www.pacificroot.net, www.open-rsc.org, www.adns.net for details

John
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 15:31
Subject: [ga] Body snatchers from Verisign have taken over Louis Touton,
help!

> The evidence is here:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg03011.html
>
> "While some consumers may prefer the WLS (since it provides a guarantee
>
> of being effective in obtaining a name if the name is deleted), other
> consumers may prefer Parava's product or those of others (since unlike
> the WLS they mostly require payment only if the name is actually
> deleted and successfully obtained).  The choice should be up to the
> consumer."
>
> I expect that sort of drivel coming from Chuck Gomes, but not from
> Louis Touton. It's been said a million times before, but to summarize,
> the demand is for the domain name -- of course people will *have* to
> purchase a WLS slot, as only the "leftover" names will be left for
> non-WLS capture.
>
> Karl: in your process of obtaining information, are you getting
> financial documents as to potential conflicts of interest of Board
> members and other ICANN staff, e.g. stockholdings, etc? It would be
> nice to hear your comments on today's decision, to the extent you can
> say in public, and on the internal deliberations.
>
> 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
>
>

- --
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 14:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Body snatchers from Verisign have taken over Louis Touton, help!

On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, George Kirikos wrote:

> The evidence is here:

[snip]

look kids, if ICANN had denied the WLS request VeriSign and all its legal
might would bare down on ICANN, this way ICANN just has to pay a bit of
lip service because we are incapable of bringing to bare the legal weight
VeriSign can muster.

I now see how it was a simple choice.

- -rick

- --
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 17:51:36 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Community Consensus

Whereas, on March 28, 2001 the Names Council of the DNSO presented a 
community consensus to the ICANN Board unilaterally opposing the VeriSign 
contract renegotiations;

Whereas, on October 11, 2001 the Names Council of the DNSO unanimously 
presented a community consensus to the ICANN Board regarding geographic and 
geopolitical identifiers;

Whereas, on November 5, 2001 a community consensus was presented to the ICANN 
Board regarding the establishment of a Supporting Organization for the 
At-large;

Whereas, on July 24, 2002 the Names Council presented a community consensus 
to the ICANN Board to reject the proposed WLS;

Whereas, the ICANN Board is in receipt of such community consensus;

Whereas, the Board notes that the Blueprint for Reform recognizes incumbent 
Board members as having demonstrated capacity for thoughtful group 
decision-making, and whereas the Evolution and Reform Committee is developing 
recommendations for implementation of enhanced authority for the Board; 

Resolved [02.101] that the President and General Counsel are authorized to 
advise the community on behalf of ICANN that we don't give a damn about 
community consensus, and that our record on this matter is clear.

  
- --
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 14:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

You know in some ways, it seems that if it weren't for such a lack of trust 
due to constant and consistent moves from the top down that broke and 
prevented bottoms up, this could almost sound positive.
Perhaps there is an "out" built in here for BoD members that want this to 
work.

hmm,
eric

> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> In retrospect, it probably would have been a good idea if the advisory
> group responsible for the recent draft had prepared a more detailed
> overview of its thinking. I certainly can't speak for the group, but
> perhaps this will help peoplee understand the draft better.
> 
> A majority of the group's members (though not all) shared your view
> that task forces were too important in the current policy-making
> scheme. So there was a deliberate attempt to dilute their importance to
> the process by making them boring. As you'll see in the draft, task
> forces primarily exist to coordinate data gathering efforts. Mapping
> out policy concerns and solutions has been pushed down, in the first
> instance, from task forces to the constituencies. Task forces
> assimilate the constituency reports and the public comments and then
> package them for debate in the Council. (Also remember that in the
> Blueprint, additional GNSO constituencies are expressly contemplated.
> We may well see an individuals constituency, a small business
> constituency and/or an academic constituency.) In my view, this is a
> step closer to "bottom up" policy development than in the status quo.
> 
> Read the draft again with that in mind, and I think you'll see some
> significant improvements.
> 
> Also, keep in mind that the policy process was greatly constrained by
> the Blueprint's requirement that it occur in "60 days or less." We
> simply couldn't do it and so recommended a process that will take 95
> days or less. Personally, I'm hard pressed to devise a system that is
> more bottom up that could take place on anything close to the
> Blueprint's tight schedule.
> 
>     -- Bret
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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 14:51:55 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

Chuck,

I honestly can't remember what Rita and/or Jeff may have proposed that was
rejected. Please refresh my recollection.

      -- Bret

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> The gTLD RC reps on the committee with you suggested alternatives.  They
> were rejected.  But it certainly doesn't make sense to perpetuate the
> current problems that exist.
> 
> Chuck
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 5:04 PM
>> To: Gomes, Chuck; [email-masked]
>> Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package
>> 
>> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>> Doesn't help my concerns at all Bret.  The bottom line, the GNSO will have
>>> the same basic makeup as the DNSO does.  That hasn't worked and it still
>>> won't.
>> 
>> What's the alternative then?
>> 
>>      -- Bret
>> 
> 

- --
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, 24 Aug 2002 00:28:01 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

Hello Bret and Chuck,

At 23.08.2002 13:53, Bret Fausett wrote:
>A majority of the group's members (though not all) shared your view that
>task forces were too important in the current policy-making scheme. So there
>was a deliberate attempt to dilute their importance to the process by making
>them boring. As you'll see in the draft, task forces primarily exist to
>coordinate data gathering efforts. Mapping out policy concerns and solutions
>has been pushed down, in the first instance, from task forces to the
>constituencies. Task forces assimilate the constituency reports and the
>public comments and then package them for debate in the Council. (Also
>remember that in the Blueprint, additional GNSO constituencies are expressly
>contemplated. We may well see an individuals constituency, a small business
>constituency and/or an academic constituency.) In my view, this is a step
>closer to "bottom up" policy development than in the status quo.

Two thoughts:
- -- The GA has, at least sometimes, been quite good at one thing: 
   Mapping out *concerns*, maybe you could call it policy exploration.
   There's just too little time to do that during NC calls, and I
   wonder whether that will now start to happen within GNSO 
   constituencies. Thomas and I have already argued that an inclusive
   GA with more participation from the constituencies would be great,
   but I'm not sure whether that will happen.
   Related: http://www.byte.org/blog/2002/08/17.html#a92
   (Possible solution: Keep a forum open for mapping out concerns,
   /even/ if some of the concerns may be exaggerated or even silly.)
- -- Constituencies become even more important in this system. They
   now have to come up with concerns and solutions in their reports.
   The lack of an individual domain holder constituency becomes
   even more glaring. (Possible solution: Create one. Avoid prior
   mistakes. Have to think about that. ;)

At 23.08.2002 17:03, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>Doesn't help my concerns at all Bret.  The bottom line, the GNSO will have
>the same basic makeup as the DNSO does.  That hasn't worked and it still
>won't.

I understand and can imagine that you would like some players to go
away. However, I don't believe that is going to happen: Stuart Lynn
originally proposed some shifts and changes, but the fact that we
are now at a DNSO-like GNSO again shows that all players are still
interested enought to fight for keeping their place. 

But I submit that the approach the gTLD registries constituency
currently seems to take -- not taking part too much in the DNSO process
and calling for its own Supporting Organization -- does not look like
a road to success. If the gTLD registries discuss and deliberate as
much as you say, wouldn't it be more convincing if the output was
a (not necessarily large) number of documents showing the positions
within the constituency? Since there is no publicy archived mailing
list, people can only look at your website which, it seems, has been
abandoned at some point in late 2001 and features only a restructuring 
proposal of October 4, 2001. 

An even more radical approach would of course be to help starting a 
place for individual registrants participation in the future GNSO -- 
that would be certainly be in line with your call for paying attention 
to substantially affected parties. 

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
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 18:04:52 -0500
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] An expedited Names Policy Development Process

In a nutshell, that's it.  The only thing I would change is:

1.  The Community raises a policy concern or VeriSign makes any request.

I'll say it again; almost all that is wrong with ICANN can be firmly planted
at the feet of Joe Sims.  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!

BTW, I never mentioned getting rid of Louis Touton, ICANN's General Counsel.
As Louis, in my opinion, is nothing more than the "inside guy" that does
whatever he's directed to do by Joe Sims, you won't need to.  As soon as Joe
and Jones Day are gone, I'd imagine Louis would just pack his bags and
leave, too.  (NOTE: For those that don't know, Louis Touton came to ICANN
from Jones Day where he worked with Joe Sims on ICANN matters before being
hired by ICANN.)

Best regards,

Jeff

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 2:05 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] An expedited Names Policy Development Process
>
>
> 1.  The Community raises a policy concern
> 2.  General Counsel tells us what the policy will be
> 3.  We all bitch and complain
> 4.  The Board endorses General Counsel's policy
> 5.  Repeat procedure as needed
>
> --
> 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, 24 Aug 2002 11:08:38 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] General Counsel vs. DNSO

On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:47:50 EDT, [email-masked] wrote:

>Has General Counsel now usurped the role of the DNSO as a policy advisory?  
>Is this second "analysis" that has been put forth strictly in keeping with 
>the role of a legal counsel, or has it "crossed the line" to the detriment of 
>the DNSO?  What legal issues are implicated now that weren't already present 
>after the first such analysis that mandated this new "analysis" from Counsel? 
> I don't see any.  

I think it has been apparent ever since the time ICANN allowed
Verisign to remain both a registrar and registry that the Board takes
the advice of its staff over any of its constituent parts (except
maybe the GAC).

I have never come across a Board which so slavishly follows the staff
advice.  The Boards I have served on quite often send staff
recommendations back if they are not comfortable with them.  You don't
want this happening all the time but one has to ask what it means when
a the vast majority of the Board vote in favour of the staff's
recommendation each and every time without exception, even when it
goes against their official advisory bodies.

There seem to me to be two possible explanations.

1) The ICANN staff are the best in the known world, are never wrong,
and the Board would be wrong to ever disagree with them.

2) The Board (or most of its members) have totally failed to apply
independent judgement, and abdicate their governance responsibilities.
One has to ask in this case why actually have a Board?  What
particular value do they add?

DPF

PS - I think once the Board may have amended a staff rec relating to
having a WIPO rep on some cmte, but the principle still stands
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 18:06:11 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: WLS Suggestion ... and results

>http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-23aug02.htm

"ignored again, naturally..."

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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 19:33:46 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Board caves in to Verisign over WLS -- let the lawsuits begin

Well, VGRS wins in any case.  Either registrants now renew for multiple 
years (more money up front for VGRS) or risk losing a domain through 
errors (or whatever) to a WLS holder.  Then VGRS also gets the WLS 
fee.  I've rarely seen such open and total disregard for consumers aside 
from a large monopolistic software manufacturer.

Leah

On 23 Aug 2002, at 11:32, George Kirikos wrote:

> See the minutes of the meeting at:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-23aug02.htm
> 
> It's a bit hilarious reading them, including such lines as:
> 
> "Whereas, although the range of opinions regarding the WLS in the
> community has significantly narrowed during the discussions of the
> issues, there remains a disparity of opinions"
> 
> I think the Board needs to be reminded that a 2/3 majority is a
> "consensus", and that WLS was rejected by the Names Council by a bigger
> margin than 2/3.
> 
> Thankfully, the registrars can challenge, based on:
> 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00303.html
> 
> and I'm sure they will.
> 
> Point "c" is pretty funny, and full of loopholes (which is what happens
> when cowboys are making up the rules as they go along, instead of
> consulting with the stakeholders):
> 
> "c) No registrar sponsoring the registration of a domain name in the
> .com and .net top-level domains shall be permitted to obtain (in its
> own name or for another, directly or indirectly) a WLS subscription on that
> name at any time after a date sixty days before the registration of the
> name is DELETED; "
> 
> Notice the word is "DELETED" and not "EXPIRED". This means hoarding of
> names by Verisign is encouraged. 
> 
> All the rest is pretty much a joke as well, but instead of picking it
> apart, it is time to begin working on the appeal process.
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
> 
> P.S. At least a few Board members weren't lemmings, and voted against
> it or abstained. They'll be vindicated in the end, after the appeals, etc.
> 
> __________________________________________________
> 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-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 20:41:45 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

Chuck and all assembly members,

  With the possible exception of the DNSO GA, I am in agreement with
Chuck here.  The DNSO "Constituency Model" has not worked and the
NC has also been an abject failure overall and especially in regards
to reflecting the measured consensus view of the constituencies..

  As the "GNSO" is just another abomination on the same or similar
scale, it too will likely be a failure if not a more disgusting and
debilitating
one the DNSO has been thus far.

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Doesn't help my concerns at all Bret.  The bottom line, the GNSO will have
> the same basic makeup as the DNSO does.  That hasn't worked and it still
> won't.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 4:53 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package
> >
> >
> > Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > In retrospect, it probably would have been a good idea if the
> > advisory group
> > responsible for the recent draft had prepared a more detailed
> > overview of
> > its thinking. I certainly can't speak for the group, but
> > perhaps this will
> > help peoplee understand the draft better.
> >
> > A majority of the group's members (though not all) shared
> > your view that
> > task forces were too important in the current policy-making
> > scheme. So there
> > was a deliberate attempt to dilute their importance to the
> > process by making
> > them boring. As you'll see in the draft, task forces
> > primarily exist to
> > coordinate data gathering efforts. Mapping out policy
> > concerns and solutions
> > has been pushed down, in the first instance, from task forces to the
> > constituencies. Task forces assimilate the constituency
> > reports and the
> > public comments and then package them for debate in the Council. (Also
> > remember that in the Blueprint, additional GNSO
> > constituencies are expressly
> > contemplated. We may well see an individuals constituency, a
> > small business
> > constituency and/or an academic constituency.) In my view,
> > this is a step
> > closer to "bottom up" policy development than in the status quo.
> >
> > Read the draft again with that in mind, and I think you'll see some
> > significant improvements.
> >
> > Also, keep in mind that the policy process was greatly
> > constrained by the
> > Blueprint's requirement that it occur in "60 days or less." We simply
> > couldn't do it and so recommended a process that will take 95
> > days or less.
> > Personally, I'm hard pressed to devise a system that is more
> > bottom up that
> > could take place on anything close to the Blueprint's tight schedule.
> >
> >     -- Bret
> >
> >
> >
> --
> 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: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:11:52 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: WLS Suggestion ... and results

Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

>
>http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-23aug02.htm
>

Well, it seems that by staying off the net for a couple of days I missed all 
the fun!

Let´s see, if I can read correctly, it says:
"The Board approved the above resolution by a 11-2-2 vote, with Mr. Abril i 
Abril and Mr. Auerbach opposed and Dr. Kyong and Mr. Mueller-Maguhn 
abstaining"

The good news is that my favourite Directors voted against (I will answer 
Karl´s message later).
So, two out of three DNSO Directors voted against the consensus of the DNSO. 
While it is well understood that the Directors act in their own capacity, 
and do not represent their home organization, it seems odd that the NC 
expresses one opinion, and the NC-elected Directors express a different one.

True, following the General Counsel report, the decision was slightly 
different than the initial WLS proposal, but the substance is mostly there. 
And anyway, it is common practice that in a negotiation you shoot high 
initially, and you settle for less.
So, my analysis is that the big winner is Verisign, that with the excuse of 
giving one more option, it has de-facto wiped out all competition on the 
"second-hand DN" market and further consolidated the concept that .com is 
run by the Registry.
Slowly slowly, firs with the amendment to the contract that allowed them to 
run Registry and Registrar, then by adding value to Registry part, Verisign 
is recovering from the losses due to increased competition.
Who is the loser? Many, I believe, as always when a move goes towards 
favouring a monopoly. But who comes out with broken bones from this story, 
methinks, is the DNSO, that has once again the confirmation that its opinion 
is not held in great value.
The funny thing is that a lot of us have complained about the little role 
that the GA has in the DNSO, where all the power is in the NC. Well, the 
power for doing what? For proposing consensus policy position that are 
disregarded by the Board, including NC-elected Directors? If I were the NC 
Chair, I would propose resignation en-masse of the NC. I know this will not 
happen, and that the NC will swallow also this one without reacting, well, 
maybe a formal message of complaint, but that will be it.

Another final consideration is about how the Board meetings are held.
I have no idea about the "special telephone meetings", but it has been 
noticed by many, including yours truly, on how the Staff excerces a heavy 
influence on the Board in public meetings. I honestly doubt that they will 
take a lower profile in private meetings. So the question might arise, what 
happens when we have a difference of opinion between the ICANN Staff and the 
Supporting Organization that is relevant for the matter discussed? The Staff 
has plenty of possibilities to attack the SO´s position and defend their 
own, but who defends the SO´s position? Not the SO´s own Directors, because 
they do not represent the SO in the Board, they just represent themselves 
(and this is proven by the fact that they can vote like loose guns).
This is a serious question. When a matter on which a SO has jurisdiction 
goes to the Board, the SO has to be granted the possibility to participate 
to the debate directly, and not via intermediation of people that do not act 
in the interest of the SO. For instance, the NC Chair has to go and explain 
the reasons of the consensus.
How can a judge give a fair judgement if plaintiff and defendant are not 
been given equal rights?

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

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

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

Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:57:47 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

Karl Auerbach wrote:

>However, I do not like the intense regulatory system that ICANN has become
>- at some point ICANN has to step back and get out of the way.  I disagree
>somewhat with P.D. Thrush's point that the regulation has to occur
>somewhere - to me that begs the question regarding whether regulation of
>certain matters is necessary at all.)

I skipped the WLS-related part, as the vote has already taken place and the 
matter is no longer actual, but I would like to address the regulation 
thing.

I have mixed feelings about the regulation. In principle, if ICANN is an 
industry self-management body, it should provide only recommendation on the 
ethic rules to be followed, but not get into regulation. But this can be 
true in a sector where competition exists: what if in the sector you have 
"natural monopolies" like the Registries? I tend to agree with Peter, some 
degree of regulation is needed, if not for else, for protecting consumers or 
weaker actors.
I know it is a rather theoretical discussion, but in one way or the other we 
have to discuss it.
A completely different matter is if the role of "moderate regulation" is 
appropriate for ICANN or will be more appropriate for a body of different 
type (inter-governmental?). I don´t have the answer, I just throw in the 
questions.
In a prior discussion on ICANN´s reform you pointed out your approach (see 
http://www.CaveBear.com/rw/apfi.htm). If you don´t think that all functions 
you detail have to be taken by the same body, we have two separate 
questions:
- - should a certain "moderate regulation" exist, given the peculiar situation 
of this market?
- - should the regulator be a private company incorporated somewhere (ICANN or 
equivalent)?

>For example - ICANN is imposing business models.  ICANN's mechanisms rule
>out potentially innovative and useful alternatives.

Maybe true.
But in the example of WLS, Verisign is in the position of imposing the 
business model and killing the competition. But this not due to innovation, 
but due to their predominant position, that comes from the "original sin" of 
being the government subcontractor (therefore their position has been 
*generated* by regulation, they can´t complain about regulation now).
What I am trying to say is that it might happen that quasi-monopoly 
situations arise: first Xerox then Canon in the photocopying business, first 
IBM then MS in computer, and so on. The position has been built by 
innovation and lost because of further innovation by competitors. All this 
is healthy business.
But less healthy for the industry is a situation in which a quasi-monopoly 
is acquired via regulation (governemt contract) and kept via regulation (no 
gTLDs added). Under these circumstances I believe that we can´t sing the 
"regulation is bad" song when an attempt is made to give a chance to at 
least a certain degree of competition, by not allowing a model in which the 
monopoly part (the Registry) can reduce the margins of the competitive part 
(the Registrars)

Just food for thought, probably in a confused manner.
Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

- --
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 #1391
*************************