Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1395
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, August 27 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1395

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

Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 09:43:49 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> I think what Chuck is commenting on is the removal of the language stating
> that issues involving purely contractual matters should not be subject to
> the PDP.

Fair enough. From my read though, several important checks remain against
the possibility of a PDP that relates to purely contractual matters.

  -- Checks against the initiation of a purely contractual PDP --

  (1) as you note, there's an opinion from the ICANN General Counsel before
the PDP process even begins;

  (2) only a two-thirds vote of the GNSO Council can begin the PDP over the
GC's evaluation that a matter is purely contractual. (I actually view the
super-majority as another check against wasteful PDPs);

  -- Checks against the implementation of a purely contractual PDP --

  (3) there's another Council vote at the end of the PDP before the
recommendation is passed to the Board;

  (4) the Board votes on whether to adopt the GNSO's recommendation (and
presumably the GC's report would carry significant weight in the Board's
decision);

  (5) Reconsideration;

  (6) Independent Review.

So I see six independent checks against something that relates purely to
issues of ICANN's contracts with registries and registrars from becoming
"policy." 

The real place of disagreement though is which group should bear the burden
of appeal to the Board, Reconsideration and then Independent Review. The
current draft places that burden on the registries and registrars; the
alternative proposed would place that on parties not in privity of contract
with ICANN. Reasonable people can certainly differ about how to strike that
balance, but I personally prefer what has been proposed in the advisory
group draft (on the assumption that commercial registries and registrars are
better able to bear the burden of reviews and appeals).

At the end of the day though, I suspect we're debating a pure hypothetical.

     -- 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: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:15:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Violations of the Bylaws?

I'd like to reiterate my request for a more detailed explanation of what's
wrong with Danny Younger's view of the situation. Imagine this were an
IETF list and someone replied to the first mention of a technical question
by saying, "I think I'm right, but take it up with the IAB if you
disagree."  I think most people would not see that as helpful, or in
keeping with IETF norms.

Danny Younger is not some flamer who deserves a brush-off like this; he's
the former Chair of the GA.  Understanding that the parallels are not
perfect, and the mention of a reconsideration request in his message did
not start this thread in the most humble fashion imaginable, I think Danny
Younger's question was in the same spirit as a technical question in the
IETF, and is equally deserving of a substantive response from someone.  A
dialog now is more likely to be enlightening to the community than a
formal reconsideration request responded to months later by a bureaucratic
staff-drafted CYA report.

On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, vinton g. cerf wrote:

> Danny,
> 
> I believe the board is operating within the ICANN Bylaws. If you think
> otherwise, then you are free to submit a reconsideration request outlining
> the specifics that you believe constitute a deviation from them.
> 
> Vint
> 
> At 12:08 PM 8/24/2002 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Dear Vint,
> >
> >Before I proceed to file a reconsideration request, I would appreciate an 
> >answer to the following questions:
> >
> >1.  Our bylaws state:  "The Board shall post on the Web Site (i) periodically 
> >a calendar of scheduled meetings for the upcoming year, and (ii) in advance 
> >of each Board meeting, a notice of the fact and time that such meeting will 
> >be held and, to the extent known, an agenda for the meeting. If reasonably 
> >practicable, the Board shall post notices of special meetings of the Board at 
> >least fourteen (14) days prior to the meetings."  The notice of the special 
> >meeting of the Board was not posted 14 days in advance of such meeting -- Why?
> >
> >2.  Our bylaws state:  "If the Board declines to accept any recommendation of 
> >a Supporting Organization, it shall return the recommendation to the 
> >Supporting Organization for further consideration, along with a statement of 
> >the reasons it declines to accept the recommendation.  If, after reasonable 
> >efforts, the Board does not receive a recommendation from the Supporting 
> >Organization that it finds meets the standards of Section 2(e) of this 
> >Article VI or, after attempting to mediate any disputes or disagreements 
> >between Supporting Organizations, receives conflicting recommendations from 
> >Supporting Organizations, and the Board finds there is a justification for 
> >prompt action, the Board may initiate, amend or modify and then approve a 
> >specific policy recommendation."   With respect to WLS, the Board declined to 
> >accept the recommendation of the DNSO yet failed to return the recommendation 
> >to the DNSO for further consideration -- Why?
> >
> >I do not seek to challenge the Board's decision with regard to WLS, only the 
> >Board's conduct with respect to the Bylaws.  Can you offer a rational 
> >justification for the Board's violation of these bylaws? 
> 
> Vint Cerf
> SVP Architecture & Technology
> WorldCom
> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> Ashburn, VA 20147
> 703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
> 703 886 0047 fax
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:02:55 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Violations of the Bylaws?

Dear Vint,

One of the responsibilities of the Board is to "recognize consensus".  

1.  3453 petitioners endorsed an Anti-WLS petition posted at 
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?antiwls
2.  A review of the comments posted to the Public Forums shows an 
overwhelming objection to the proposed WLS
3.  Members of the General Assembly were similarly overwhelmingly in 
opposition to the WLS
4.  Every single constituency with the exception of the gTLDs came out in 
opposition to the WLS
5.  The DNSO voted to reject Verisign's request to amend its agreement to 
enable it to introduce its proposed WLS
6.  The DNSO also voted to reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS for 12 
months

and yet the Board has resolved to launch the WLS.

In your testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet on 8 February 2001 you 
stated, "ICANN is a consensus development body, not a regulatory agency.  Its 
decisions are intended to reflect consensus in the Internet community, not 
simply the policy preferences of those who happen to sit on its Board at any 
given moment." 

As I am sure that you did not willfully lie to the US Government, I can only 
assume that the Board's decision on WLS must reflect a consensus in the 
Internet community that I have somehow failed to notice.  Otherwise one might 
conclude that you have chosen to act in defiance of the community will at a 
time when the Department of Commerce has been looking for assurances that the 
views of all Internet stakeholders are being heard.  

Perhaps you would be good enough to demonstrate the presence of such 
community consensus so that we don't arrive at the conclusion that your 
collective actions represent simply the policy preferences of those who now 
sit on the Board... Unless of course, the Board is now of the view that it 
has no obligation to honor, respect, or abide by the consensus of the 
community.

- --
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: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:00:44 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

Brett,

Where is the "independent review?"  How are the other five review steps
independent?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 12:44 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package
> 
> 
> Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> > I think what Chuck is commenting on is the removal of the 
> language stating
> > that issues involving purely contractual matters should not 
> be subject to
> > the PDP.
> 
> Fair enough. From my read though, several important checks 
> remain against
> the possibility of a PDP that relates to purely contractual matters.
> 
>   -- Checks against the initiation of a purely contractual PDP --
> 
>   (1) as you note, there's an opinion from the ICANN General 
> Counsel before
> the PDP process even begins;
> 
>   (2) only a two-thirds vote of the GNSO Council can begin 
> the PDP over the
> GC's evaluation that a matter is purely contractual. (I 
> actually view the
> super-majority as another check against wasteful PDPs);
> 
>   -- Checks against the implementation of a purely contractual PDP --
> 
>   (3) there's another Council vote at the end of the PDP before the
> recommendation is passed to the Board;
> 
>   (4) the Board votes on whether to adopt the GNSO's 
> recommendation (and
> presumably the GC's report would carry significant weight in 
> the Board's
> decision);
> 
>   (5) Reconsideration;
> 
>   (6) Independent Review.
> 
> So I see six independent checks against something that 
> relates purely to
> issues of ICANN's contracts with registries and registrars 
> from becoming
> "policy." 
> 
> The real place of disagreement though is which group should 
> bear the burden
> of appeal to the Board, Reconsideration and then Independent 
> Review. The
> current draft places that burden on the registries and registrars; the
> alternative proposed would place that on parties not in 
> privity of contract
> with ICANN. Reasonable people can certainly differ about how 
> to strike that
> balance, but I personally prefer what has been proposed in 
> the advisory
> group draft (on the assumption that commercial registries and 
> registrars are
> better able to bear the burden of reviews and appeals).
> 
> At the end of the day though, I suspect we're debating a pure 
> hypothetical.
> 
>      -- 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: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:04:49 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Relations with the ccTLDs (was Re: [ga] Re: Violations of the Bylaws?

- --=======249398B=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-608465D9; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Patricio,
You point out that Jon Postel introduced that concern in Memo #1.

At 17:02 26/08/02, Patricio Poblete wrote:
>   Jon Postel admitted explicitly in the ccTLD News Memo #1
>    <http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-news1.htm> that this was a rule the
>    IANA started using after RFC 1591 was issued ("An additional factor has
>    become very important since RFC 1591 was written: the desires of the
>    government of the country.").

He also introduces another rule which is:

<quote>
Sometimes there are questions about what kind of names should be allowed 
(or outlawed).  The experience is that if there is to be some set of 
allowed (or outlawed) names in a particular situation the best approach is 
to use an existing list maintained by another long-existing, reputable, 
organization.  Just as we use the list of country codes determined by the 
ISO-3166 standard.
</quote>

This may be understood in different contexts. Let take the "worst" one. May 
I remind you that the ISO 3166 two letters codes where chosen in 1984 to 
avoid confusion with the use, since 1977, of the ISO 3166 three letters 
codes for State monopoly public services (not used anymore in 1997 when Jon 
Postel writes this: progressively replaced from 1983 by the ITU X.121 DNIC 
list - ie. another list by a "long existing, reputable organization").

This leads to the following remarks:

1. according to the jurisprudence of ICP-1 and added zone control, ICANN 
could introduce 3 letters TLDs, or other national TLDs following a 
convention of the Library of Congress for example.

2. the nature of the 2 letters codes and the initial legitimacy of the 
ccTLDs Jon Postel's agreement was *not to be government dependent", based 
upon a legitimacy born from the Local Internet Community support (the 
trustee of the local Internet community: nothing to do with government).

3. States have with the ISC 3 letters codes "an existing list maintained by 
another long-existing, reputable, organization" a total legitimacy to 
operate 3 letters national TLDs (except Comoros) - with the same 
international rules and protection as ccTLDs in term of international 
management and updates. This is a way to address the local monopoly issue, 
and to respond to the desire of some Govs to control a national naming plan.

Instead of destabilizing the network through treads on the ccTLDs, ICANN 
should stabilize it in asking ccTLD to help Governments to establish and 
run their own ISO 3166 three letters code TLDs.

As a general comment, this change in the understanding of the ccTLDs 
situation (dated 1997) is in direct relation with the (dated 1996) US 
doctrine globally redefined by the 1996 Act. If you look at the 47 USC 230 
(f)(1) definition of the Internet you see it clearly. That definition is 
now used in every US legal body/proposition (even when concerning 
supposedly domestic issues, such as sending someone in jail for false Whois 
identity) .

"(f) Definitions: As used in this section: (1) Internet. The term 
"Internet" means the international computer network of both federal and non 
federal interoperable packet switch networks."

This US definition (totally different from Vint's own "interconnection of 
technologies"):

1. justifies ICP-3's claim of rooting the international rights of (USG 
originated, through IANA sales agreement) ICANN in the 1984/85 RFC 921/920 
situation. At that time TCP/IP networks were not involved with 
international operations (and ccTLDs only planed), *but* worldwide packet 
switch services were probably a nearly one billion dollar yearly business, 
were internationally US centered, however with the largest public network 
in France (nearly 1.5 millions Minitel).

2. explains the difficulty of ICANN to address the positions of the 
governments in its scheme (and ERC).  This definition of the Internet puts 
ICANN in control of every packet switch system, worldwide, but concerned 
governments, industries and peoples have not yet understood it.

To enforce its rights ICANN needs the approval and the help of the local 
governments. This explains the patient effort to weave the "ContractNet", 
to give the dominance they purchased for less than $ 10.000 (IANA contract) 
from the USG, the perfume of an international concertance. This might (?) 
also explain the fear that @large or ITU might interfere before the 
status-quo is definitely locked (through the root management artificial 
complexity - what Joe names "DNS stability"). We all know the way an 
European GAC diplomat summarized this ("AmerICANN joke").

What is interesting is that the USG is in competition with Verisign: the 
competition ICANN is to foster is not about the registrars smoke screen, 
but about the USG recovering control from VRSN and from a few other 
Stakeholders - in enlarging the number of the "Internet Yalta" Members to a 
limited "netset" of US and International selected corporations.

We are not dealing here with commercial, technical, social, civil right 
issues - the reason why GA has no real weight, except when it calls for a 
rebid. We are dealing with the digital sovereignty of the USA, and of 188 
other governments, at a time the world becomes digital.

jfc

- --=======249398B=======--

- --
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: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:58:20 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Where is the "independent review?"  How are the other five review steps
> independent?

Two uses of "independent." When I said there were six "independent" checks,
I meant "independent" as in "not dependent on or conditioned by or relative
to anything else." When I said that one of those checks was "independent"
review, I meant "independent" as in "free from external control and
constraint."

I thought my intention was apparent from context, but just to be clear:
there are six "distinct" hurdles to cross before something becomes a policy,
and one of those is "independent review."

Becky Burr recently submitted a recommendation on how independent review
might work: 
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/afap-report-23aug02.htm

      -- 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: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:04:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Google finally adds dnso.org to its index

Hello,

Now that the restrictive robots.txt has been removed, the DNSO.org
website has made it into the Google index.

Using a search such as "kirikos site:dnso.org" (without the quotes),
one can get all the matches which mention me, for example. 731 matches
for "verisign monopoly site:dnso.org", as another example, or 3220 for
"wls site:dnso.org". With more precise searches, we can finally find
all those historic posts to help document certain things....great
research tool...

For those into Page Rank, all our DNSO posts finally boost our Google
rank a little...

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/ <-- +1 added to George's link count ;)

__________________________________________________
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: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:51:41 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Status of DNSO's ICANN Board Nominations

ACCEPTED Nominations:
  
  none

NOT (YET) ACCEPTED Nominations:

  Vivek Durai
  Erick Iriarte Ahon
  Youn Jung Park
  Alejandro Pisanty

DECLINED Nominations:

  Roberto Gaetano
  Grant Forsyth
  James Love

Nominations close Friday 30 August 2002 at 12:00 UTC (14:00 Paris)
Acceptances close Friday 30 August 2002 at 15:00 UTC (17:00 Paris)

Details on how to nominate and accept:
http://www.dnso.org/elections/2002.DNSO-ICANN-nomination-proc.html
http://www.dnso.org/elections/2002.DNSO-ICANN-nominees.html

Archive of nominations and acceptances:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/icann-nominations/Arc02/ 

- --
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: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:46:38 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Violations of the Bylaws?

Danny and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Vint,
>
> One of the responsibilities of the Board is to "recognize consensus".
>
> 1.  3453 petitioners endorsed an Anti-WLS petition posted at
> http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?antiwls

  Good point.  Not only did this petition serve and an example
that WLS was not supported by a consensus, it also shows
some actual "Measure" of that fact.   In addition I would add
here that our [INEGroup] members voted very strongly
against WLS as well.  We also communicated this to
DOC/NTIA as well as the ICANN BoD.

>
> 2.  A review of the comments posted to the Public Forums shows an
> overwhelming objection to the proposed WLS
> 3.  Members of the General Assembly were similarly overwhelmingly in
> opposition to the WLS
> 4.  Every single constituency with the exception of the gTLDs came out in
> opposition to the WLS
> 5.  The DNSO voted to reject Verisign's request to amend its agreement to
> enable it to introduce its proposed WLS
> 6.  The DNSO also voted to reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS for 12
> months
>
> and yet the Board has resolved to launch the WLS.
>
> In your testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
> Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet on 8 February 2001 you
> stated, "ICANN is a consensus development body, not a regulatory agency.  Its
> decisions are intended to reflect consensus in the Internet community, not
> simply the policy preferences of those who happen to sit on its Board at any
> given moment."
>
> As I am sure that you did not willfully lie to the US Government, I can only
> assume that the Board's decision on WLS must reflect a consensus in the
> Internet community that I have somehow failed to notice.  Otherwise one might
> conclude that you have chosen to act in defiance of the community will at a
> time when the Department of Commerce has been looking for assurances that the
> views of all Internet stakeholders are being heard.
>
> Perhaps you would be good enough to demonstrate the presence of such
> community consensus so that we don't arrive at the conclusion that your
> collective actions represent simply the policy preferences of those who now
> sit on the Board... Unless of course, the Board is now of the view that it
> has no obligation to honor, respect, or abide by the consensus of the
> community.

  I think it has been pretty clear sense MdR 2000 that the ICANN BoD
is not particularly interested in the "Measured" or any other kind
of legitimate Consensus of the internet community...  A number of the
several year long actions of Worldcom's executives, of which Vint
is one, shows this poor attitude to be more pervasive than originally
thought...

>
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:16:38 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Relations with the ccTLDs (was Re: [ga] Re: Violations of the Bylaws?

Jeff and all assembly members,

  Jeff's point here is, or should be well taken.  Vint's answer to
Danny's original question to me seemed both inaccurate, after
I again reviewed the ICANN Bylaws, and also evasive to
a degree.  Hence again I, amongst now several other stakeholders/users
believe that Vint or some other member(s) of the ICANN  BoD
should answer Danny's question along the lines Jeff is suggesting
and /or requesting here.  Of course I, for one am not going to
hold my breath waiting for such an answer...

Jeff Field wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of vinton g.
> > cerf
> > Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 4:45 AM
> > To: Peter Dengate Thrush
> > Cc: icann board address; [email-masked]; Robin Layton; [email-masked];
> > [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: Relations with the ccTLDs (was Re: [ga] Re: Violations of
> > the Bylaws?
> >
> <---snip--->
> >
> > The DNSO offered several alternatives to the Board including
> > acceptance of WLS, with some built-in requirements - the board
> > adopted that approach.
> >
> <---snip--->
>
> Vint,
>
> With all due respect, the DNSO offered "a primary recommendation, and an
> alternative", *not* "several alternatives to the Board including acceptance
> of WLS".  The Board rejected the primary recommendation ("Recommendation to
> deny the WLS") and went with the alternative recommendation.  The
> alternative recommendation, with conditions, was provided because "The TF
> takes into account that the ICANN Board may not accept the policy
> recommendations noted above for a variety of reasons."; reasons which are
> not laid out in the report but which are apparently assumed to be reasons
> the Board, in its infinite wisdom, may have which are unknown to the DNSO.
> I believe the answer everyone is looking for are the reasons the Board
> rejected the DNSO's primary recommendation.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jeff
>
> --
> jeff field
> 952-848-7626
> 952-848-7627 fax
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> -----
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:30:53 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Nominations

Peter Dengate Thrush

I am not in the habit of Nominating.  Perhaps because my nomination may
cause harm to the candidate.

This is a man that could make a difference.  I have watched him run
meetings and read his contributions on many lists.  While I do not
always agree with his positions, he moves and walks with integrity.  His
work with ccTLDs brings us as close to individual representation as we
can achieve at this juncture.

I hereby, with great respect, and thanks for his efforts and
accomplishments;

Nominate:
Peter Dengate Thrush
- --
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: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 07:26:40 +0200
From: "Alf Hansen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Nominations

Eric,

Please make sure that you follow the correct nomination procedure
described in
http://www.dnso.org/elections/2002.DNSO-ICANN-nomination-proc.html

Otherwise your message may not be accepted as a nomination.

Best regards,
Alf H
.NO

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> Of [email-masked]
> Sent: 27. august 2002 04:31
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Nominations
> 
> 
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> 
> I am not in the habit of Nominating.  Perhaps because my 
> nomination may cause harm to the candidate.
> 
> This is a man that could make a difference.  I have watched 
> him run meetings and read his contributions on many lists.  
> While I do not always agree with his positions, he moves and 
> walks with integrity.  His work with ccTLDs brings us as 
> close to individual representation as we can achieve at this juncture.
> 
> I hereby, with great respect, and thanks for his efforts and 
> accomplishments;
> 
> Nominate:
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> --
> 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: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:42:42 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nominations

Gentlemen,
I am honoured by your support, but have to say that I am currently too
involved in assisting in the formation of the ccSO, and other cctld related
matters, to be able to accept your kind nomination.

Thank you.

My regards

Peter Dengate Thrush
Senior Vice Chair
Asia Pacific TLD Association
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 2:30 PM
Subject: [ga] Nominations

> Peter Dengate Thrush
>
> I am not in the habit of Nominating.  Perhaps because my nomination may
> cause harm to the candidate.
>
> This is a man that could make a difference.  I have watched him run
> meetings and read his contributions on many lists.  While I do not
> always agree with his positions, he moves and walks with integrity.  His
> work with ccTLDs brings us as close to individual representation as we
> can achieve at this juncture.
>
> I hereby, with great respect, and thanks for his efforts and
> accomplishments;
>
> Nominate:
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> --
> 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: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:27:44 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] WHOIS Policy?

Marilyn,

Regarding the accuracy of data contained in the WHOIS database, your Task 
Force has stated:  "The Task Force believes that the approach of actually 
enforcing the existing contractual provisions is the essential first step 
toward improving WHOIS data accuracy in the gTLD environment."  One such 
contractual provision reads:

[3.7.7.2]  A Registered Name Holder's willful provision of inaccurate or 
unreliable information, its willful failure promptly to update information 
provided to Registrar, or its failure to respond for over fifteen calendar 
days to inquiries by Registrar concerning the accuracy of contact details 
associated with the Registered Name Holder's registration shall constitute a 
material breach of the Registered Name Holder-registrar contract and be a 
basis for cancellation of the Registered Name registration.

So, if I choose to provide inaccurate data in order to protect my privacy 
rights, are you are telling me that it is the current recommendation of the 
Task Force that registries/registrars be forced to cancel my domain name 
registration and that their failure to cancel my registration will result in 
sanctions against them?
- --
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: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:43:26 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Violations of the Bylaws?

Danny - you have been doing a stunning job in highlighting the massive
breaches of process and policy by ICANN's Board.  Keep up the good
work - I for one really appreciate your efforts.  

DPF

On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:02:55 EDT, [email-masked] wrote:

>Dear Vint,
>
>One of the responsibilities of the Board is to "recognize consensus".  
>
>1.  3453 petitioners endorsed an Anti-WLS petition posted at 
>http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?antiwls
>2.  A review of the comments posted to the Public Forums shows an 
>overwhelming objection to the proposed WLS
>3.  Members of the General Assembly were similarly overwhelmingly in 
>opposition to the WLS
>4.  Every single constituency with the exception of the gTLDs came out in 
>opposition to the WLS
>5.  The DNSO voted to reject Verisign's request to amend its agreement to 
>enable it to introduce its proposed WLS
>6.  The DNSO also voted to reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS for 12 
>months
>
>and yet the Board has resolved to launch the WLS.
>
>In your testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
>Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet on 8 February 2001 you 
>stated, "ICANN is a consensus development body, not a regulatory agency.  Its 
>decisions are intended to reflect consensus in the Internet community, not 
>simply the policy preferences of those who happen to sit on its Board at any 
>given moment." 
>
>As I am sure that you did not willfully lie to the US Government, I can only 
>assume that the Board's decision on WLS must reflect a consensus in the 
>Internet community that I have somehow failed to notice.  Otherwise one might 
>conclude that you have chosen to act in defiance of the community will at a 
>time when the Department of Commerce has been looking for assurances that the 
>views of all Internet stakeholders are being heard.  
>
>Perhaps you would be good enough to demonstrate the presence of such 
>community consensus so that we don't arrive at the conclusion that your 
>collective actions represent simply the policy preferences of those who now 
>sit on the Board... Unless of course, the Board is now of the view that it 
>has no obligation to honor, respect, or abide by the consensus of the 
>community.

- --
[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: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:59:53 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Structure and values (was Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion)

On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 07:17:58 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

>It is a job best left to governments. While I can't say I'm particularly happy
>with my governments track record on that point as of late, at least I have
>some semblance of representation, and my governments pockets are deep
>enough to engage in long, drawn-out suits involving monopolists.

This perhaps is true in your country. Not in all countries - not even in all
Western countries (in fact, the Prime Minister of Italy is a
quasi-monopolist in most media markets in the country - can you imagine his
government sueing monopolies?). 

So I still think we should question whether ICANN is the right
non-governmental regulatory body and built in the right way, rather than
suggesting that there should be an international governmental regulator
rather than a non-governmental one.

Said this, the recent decision on WLS seems to prove that the present ICANN
is unable to take into proper account the need to protect consumers and
competition, even to the point of reversing the consensus in the underlying
constituency bodies; and also proves once again that ICANN's decisions have
a deep effect on the effectiveness and affordability of prices and services
in the DNS market for the registrants, and then, in cascade, for final users
(this for Ross Rader).

I have been contributing to ICANN's Reform process (last, as a member of the
ALAC Advisory Group) because I think that we should avoid at any cost that a
governmental body replaces ICANN, and because I think that users like me,
notwithstanding their good reasons, have to work to prove their ability to
supply practical contributions to decision-making processes. But this last
*policy* decision from the Board is very disappointing. If I had to prove
why ICANN needs not just a structural reform, but a marked change of
direction in terms of policy-making process and values, the WLS episode
would be one of my top evidences.
- -- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
- --------> http://bertola.eu.org/ - Archivio FAQ e molto altro... <--------
- --
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 #1395
*************************