Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1414
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Tuesday, September 10 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1414

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

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Byfield on GA Reform / comments

As I read this discussion, it seems to me that it is between those who are
willing to accept a subordinate and nearly voiceless status and those who
are not.

Under the current regime and under the "reform" plan(s), the GA is a toy
body that is allowed to exist as a kind of placebo for what, in ICANNland
are "the lower classes", those who use the net (and who ultimately pay the
costs.)  The so-called "reform" further reduces the GA.  Personally, I
believe that the converse ought to be the path - that the names council
should be abolished and replaced by a new entity that consists only of
people elected by the GA.

I object most strenuously to the "stakeholder" notion that is infused
throughout ICANN now and proposed that certain people, merely by virtue of
their affiliation with groups or concepts such as intellectual property or
DNS registries, more worthy than you or I, to sit on those bodies, such as
the names council - and in less than two months, on the board - that
actually have powers to make decisions about Internet policies.

As for "moderated" - we have seen ICANN's notion of "moderation", a system
in which communications is so crabbed and limited that the "result" is not
a group position hammered out and agreed upon by counted votes, but
instead is a mishmosh of opinions that is so unfocused that NC or "staff"
can do a bit of exgesis to justify whatever it wanted to do in the first
place.

ICANN's "moderation" as censorship is deep seated - ICANN ignored the
work of the IFWP, ICANN labeled as "arrogant" and "juvenile" those who
petitioned for a delay in the UDRP that was railroaded through the
proto-incompletely formed DNSO, and ICANN's "staff" has "moderated" me by
silently refusing to publish any of my own writings on ICANN's web site,
despite the routine posting of similar materials by other directors and
affiliates.  How often has the board of directors (or staff) "moderated" 
the DNSO by ignoring its decisions - such as about WLS or .org?

The GA does need process - I have long been an advocate of an form of
Roberts rules modified for electronic contexts - but if the GA needs
anything, it is not "moderation".  Quite the contrary, it needs to as a
group make a clear resolution, and vote on that resolution, about what it
sees as its role.

		--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: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:01:45 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] is your Internet connection secure from surveilance?

Your solution is good. In general, anyone worried about this kind of invasion of privacy 
should arrange to run their own root servers. The more the merrier. This is not neccessarily
about having multiple roots with colliding TLDs, but about security from surveillance. 

One discouraging fact is that even if everyone moves to localized root servers, the USG
still controls the servers for .COM/.NET and .ORG as well as, most definitly .GOV and
.MIL. The same trick that they can play at the root server level can also be played at
the gtld-server level. They can just rig [A-M].GTLD-SERVERS.NET instead of
the roots. They may not be able to capture all of the traffic that a user generates, but 
most of it, since most websites/domains are in the "big three" and those are controlled by USG.

John
- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 11:28
Subject: [ga] is your Internet connection secure from surveilance?

> I have attached a draft PDF file addressed to Canada's privacy and
> information commissioners which outlines my concerns respecting privacy
> issues in root operations.
> 
> I would welcome any comments.  Please email them directly to me.
> 
> kindest regards
> joe baptista
> 
> --
> www.dot-god.com
>   .. on the other side of the internet universe
> 
> 

- --
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, 9 Sep 2002 21:36:18 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] REMINDER: Open Transfer TF call + dial in number

[To: [email-masked], [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]]

This is reminder with the dial in number and pass code, that on Wednesday,
September 11, 2002, the Transfer Task Force call will be open to interested
participants for a discussion on the draft recommendations regarding
transfers.

Time:                  2:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. (EDT US)
 For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

 Dial-in No.:          954-797-1944

 Host (MC) Code:  740 105

 Participant Code: 876 213

THIS IS NOT INTENDED IN ANY WAY TO REPLACE PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT IS AN EFFORT
TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR INTERESTED PARTIES TO DISCUSS QUESTIONS AND
ISSUES WITH THE TASK FORCE.
The open portion of the call will begin at 2:30 EST p.m.
For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

The drafting team is planning to post their draft on Tuesday to the TR-TF
list, so that all can have a chance to see it before the call. However, we
understand that some may also have specific questions.

IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO RSVP FOR THE CALL SO WE CAN GET ENOUGH PORTS.

PLEASE RSVP TO THE [email-masked] VIA EMAIL.
WE WILL ADD IN CONFERENCE PORTS ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF RSVP'S RECEIVED.

This section of the call will be scheduled for one hour and 30 minutes, so
that the TF can complete some additional work as well in the remaining 30
minutes of their scheduled time.

We will hold at least one more, and possibly two more open calls, depending
on the interest we receive.  This notice is being sent to the constituency
and GA list by the DNSO Secretariat.

Again, this is not intended to replace public comment but to inform the TF
of additional views and perspectives while we are in the process of
developing and finalizing draft recommendations.

Best regards,
Marilyn Cade

- --
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, 09 Sep 2002 18:03:01 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Byfield on GA Reform / comments

> The GA does need process - I have long been an advocate of an form of
> Roberts rules modified for electronic contexts - but if the GA needs
> anything, it is not "moderation".  Quite the contrary, it needs to as a
> group make a clear resolution, and vote on that resolution, about what it
> sees as its role.
>
> 		--karl--

But Karl, that's impossible since Thomas abolished voting procedures in the
GA. There is no place left inside ICANN where individuals can vote on
anything.

Also, Thomas's rebuttal to Ted's article fails to take into account that
while the Bylaws were never actually changed to reflect the will of the
General Assembly to elect its own Chair, it was not for want of the trying,
with the GA passing a clear resolution on the issue. See DNSO Vote b03 of
March 2001.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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, 9 Sep 2002 17:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Byfield on GA Reform / comments

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Joanna Lane wrote:

> > The GA does need process - I have long been an advocate of an form of
> > Roberts rules modified for electronic contexts - but if the GA needs
> > anything, it is not "moderation".  Quite the contrary, it needs to as a
> > group make a clear resolution, and vote on that resolution, about what it
> > sees as its role.
 
> But Karl, that's impossible since Thomas abolished voting procedures in the
> GA. There is no place left inside ICANN where individuals can vote on
> anything.

To borrow a trademarked phrase: if you need an election then "just do it"!

One can propose a proposition and hold an election.  You don't need
permission.  It would be interesting indeed to see if the holding of such 
an election were to be censored by the list "moderators".

I suggest the first proposition be something like this:

 We, the assembled GA, declare that we are a fully empowered body;  We
 assert the right to establish our own agenda and procedures and to elect
 and recall our own officers.

The second proposition would be to establish a mailing list *outside* of 
the control of ICANN and the DNSO.  ICANN can't object - isn't such 
"outside" organization one of the goals of the ALAC?

		--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: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 19:41:40 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Byfield on GA Reform / comments

On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 05:01:36PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> One can propose a proposition and hold an election.  You don't need
> permission.  It would be interesting indeed to see if the holding of such 
> an election were to be censored by the list "moderators".
> 
> I suggest the first proposition be something like this:
> 
>  We, the assembled GA, declare that we are a fully empowered body;  We
>  assert the right to establish our own agenda and procedures and to elect
>  and recall our own officers.
> 
> The second proposition would be to establish a mailing list *outside* of 
> the control of ICANN and the DNSO.  ICANN can't object - isn't such 
> "outside" organization one of the goals of the ALAC?

By all means.  Set up your own mailing list, outside the control of
ICANN -- you can hold your votes on it.  Since you claim that the GA is
powerless, and also since, according to you, the only thing that matters
is power anyway, I don't see why you remain subscribed to the GA list at
all -- seems like according to your own standards, it's just a waste of
time.  :-)

Kent
- --
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, 10 Sep 2002 04:19:33 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Byfield on GA Reform / comments

- --=======16C46A1F=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-792E5341; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 19:46 09/09/02, Karl Auerbach said:
>As I read this discussion, it seems to me that it is between those who are
>willing to accept a subordinate and nearly voiceless status and those who
>are not.

I am intersted in knowing what is happening right now about ccTLDs. Any 
notion about the ccSO ERC proposition? My understanding is that the ccTLD 
legitimacy is from their local communities and not from Memo#1 threat: that 
puts them into direct conflict with Joe Sims, as the GA. Users from 
everywhere in the world should also share into the ccSO: a new GA? I guess not:

ICANN consensus over @large is by Esther and Denise and a few @large 
entrapped to endorse it.
ICANN consensus over ccTLDs will be by a second level Staff member and a 
few ccTLD and experts entrapped to endorse it.
ICANN consensus over GA will be by NC and a few ...
ICANN consensus over new TLDs

Obviously this works as long as Joe Sims may say "the consensus has been 
decided by the BoD in Bucharest". ie as long as he manages ContactNet. BTW 
is anyone still interested in the Internet? The coming mnemonic 
recomposition no one will  control (from the iDNs complete mess if as 
currently proposed) will be interesting.

jfc

>Under the current regime and under the "reform" plan(s), the GA is a toy
>body that is allowed to exist as a kind of placebo for what, in ICANNland
>are "the lower classes", those who use the net (and who ultimately pay the
>costs.)  The so-called "reform" further reduces the GA.  Personally, I
>believe that the converse ought to be the path - that the names council
>should be abolished and replaced by a new entity that consists only of
>people elected by the GA.
>
>I object most strenuously to the "stakeholder" notion that is infused
>throughout ICANN now and proposed that certain people, merely by virtue of
>their affiliation with groups or concepts such as intellectual property or
>DNS registries, more worthy than you or I, to sit on those bodies, such as
>the names council - and in less than two months, on the board - that
>actually have powers to make decisions about Internet policies.
>
>As for "moderated" - we have seen ICANN's notion of "moderation", a system
>in which communications is so crabbed and limited that the "result" is not
>a group position hammered out and agreed upon by counted votes, but
>instead is a mishmosh of opinions that is so unfocused that NC or "staff"
>can do a bit of exgesis to justify whatever it wanted to do in the first
>place.
>
>ICANN's "moderation" as censorship is deep seated - ICANN ignored the
>work of the IFWP, ICANN labeled as "arrogant" and "juvenile" those who
>petitioned for a delay in the UDRP that was railroaded through the
>proto-incompletely formed DNSO, and ICANN's "staff" has "moderated" me by
>silently refusing to publish any of my own writings on ICANN's web site,
>despite the routine posting of similar materials by other directors and
>affiliates.  How often has the board of directors (or staff) "moderated"
>the DNSO by ignoring its decisions - such as about WLS or .org?
>
>The GA does need process - I have long been an advocate of an form of
>Roberts rules modified for electronic contexts - but if the GA needs
>anything, it is not "moderation".  Quite the contrary, it needs to as a
>group make a clear resolution, and vote on that resolution, about what it
>sees as its role.
>
>                 --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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.385 / Virus Database: 217 - Release Date: 04/09/02

- --=======16C46A1F=======--

- --
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, 10 Sep 2002 04:41:50 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Byfield on GA Reform / comments

- --=======74F63D95=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-792E5341; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 02:01 10/09/02, Karl Auerbach said:
>The second proposition would be to establish a mailing list *outside* of
>the control of ICANN and the DNSO.  ICANN can't object - isn't such
>"outside" organization one of the goals of the ALAC?

Unfrotunately we have had that a time: it was named the IDNO, then it was 
named the @large. The fist failed because Joop's polling booth was too 
sophisticated, the second is failiong because Joanna has no polling system 
at all. GA fails because Thomas has control on the polling system.

If we add all these experiences, the real issue is to develop a good motion 
system that peole would enjoy using. I had the chance as a PO of the IDNO 
to observe how such a system might work (a very, very simple e-mailing plus 
a vote reader). But it needs automated motion support, filing and 
reporting. Most of all an humble and efficient Chairmanship respecting the 
voters and the rules. What I never saw a Chair able to do when confronted 
to real life pressure.

So, I came to the conclusion that a Chair must be a machine - to be 
neutral; timely etc. and the real Chair has just to make it work or to 
control it. This is the only way to have the decorum. But it calls for a 
real development.
jfc

- --=======74F63D95=======--

- --
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, 10 Sep 2002 15:07:59 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] is your Internet connection secure from surveilance?

On 12:28 p.m. 9/09/2002 -0400, [email-masked] said:
>I have attached a draft PDF file addressed to Canada's privacy and
>information commissioners which outlines my concerns respecting privacy
>issues in root operations.

Joe,

With your letter to the Canadia authorities, did you not just commit a 
major violation of the privacy of those trusting Dieboldt customers?
There is a major principle involved with your argument that the Romans knew 
as: "Nemo auditur turpitidinem suam allegans".

I.e. how do you expect internet users  to follow your logic and *trust* 
,say, Mr Pacificroot, if you have just shown them what such unaccountable 
rogues can do with private individuals' data?

I'm not saying that they can trust Verisign or the USG.
I'm saying that they can only trust those who offer them a mechanism of 
accountability.

- --Joop

- --
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, 09 Sep 2002 20:46:33 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Byfield on GA Reform / comments

Now this here is exactly what our staff should be writing.
What an intelligent assinign pig.
Oh i'm sorry, I forgot this idiot is in charge of security.

What a shame!
e

[email-masked] wrote:

> By all means.  Set up your own mailing list, outside the control of
> ICANN -- you can hold your votes on it.  Since you claim that the GA is
> powerless, and also since, according to you, the only thing that matters
> is power anyway, I don't see why you remain subscribed to the GA list at
> all -- seems like according to your own standards, it's just a waste of
> time.  :-)
>
> Kent

- --
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, 9 Sep 2002 23:59:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] is your Internet connection secure from surveilance?

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> On 12:28 p.m. 9/09/2002 -0400, [email-masked] said:
> >I have attached a draft PDF file addressed to Canada's privacy and
> >information commissioners which outlines my concerns respecting privacy
> >issues in root operations.
>
> Joe,
>
> With your letter to the Canadia authorities, did you not just commit a
> major violation of the privacy of those trusting Dieboldt customers?
> There is a major principle involved with your argument that the Romans knew
> as: "Nemo auditur turpitidinem suam allegans".

No .. not at all.  The running of a root server is a position of trust.  I
understand that perfectly.  And since PCCF never accepted by contract or
word to be put in a position of trust we don't consider this a privacy
violation.  You might say trust was forced upon us and we acted in the
best interests of the users.

The reason this happened was mainly due to diebold.  Diebold ran the root
servers without obtaining our permission.  Thats the first critical issue.

Everyone who operates a root knows roots are mapped via IPv4 numbers.
Therefore it is critical that root operators platform themselves on secure
infrastructure.  This is not an option - this is the rule.

Since we were not in a position to gurantee a secure infrastructure the
only means by which we could eliminate liability was to flush the root.
Which is what we did.

We explained this to diebold and we attempted to get their co-operation.
They had no interest.  back then diebold was a mess - probably still is.
and the problems were mainly internal - fighting between departments - so
the users were of no concern to them.

If diebold had acted then the logs would never of been made.  They exist
for legal reasons.  I'm sure being a lawyer you can figure out the rest.

> I.e. how do you expect internet users  to follow your logic and *trust*
> ,say, Mr Pacificroot, if you have just shown them what such unaccountable
> rogues can do with private individuals' data?

as far as i know pacroot operates roots on their own infrastructure.  the
diebold root was an orsc root server.  So the incident has no relationship
to pacroot.

> I'm not saying that they can trust Verisign or the USG.
> I'm saying that they can only trust those who offer them a mechanism of
> accountability.

I agree.  thats the whole point I'm trying to make.  trust is critical in
root operations.

regards
joe

- --
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, 09 Sep 2002 23:45:27 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Byfield on GA Reform / comments

Eric, Kent and all assembly members,

  Indeed!  This sort of response from Kent towards Karls well
reasoned post is par for the course, as they say from Kent.
His long standing utter contempt for Karl, a ICANN BOD member,
is something that shows where the ICANN staff really stands
with some BoD members that are not in agreement with them.

  If such a staff member in my company made such a remark
towards a BoD member, he would be seeking employment
elsewhere rather quickly, regardless of his status as a staff member.

  As a so called expert in security, Kent is well known for
believing the PKI is so much garbage.  I have sense found
his so called expertise very questionable at best as a result
of this attitude/opinion of his. I believe many in the security
software industry are in agreement with me here that have
read Kent's rantings on PKI in the past...

 Than again Harold Alverstand has been a PGP bigot or
was at one time (Documented on this very GA list BTW)
and he is the IAB Chair no less!  See: http://www.iab.org/members.html
I think and hope that both Kent and Harald will be attending
the Sans conference here: http://www.sans.org/KansasCity/track1.php
so that they can really learn something...

  Given Kent and Haralds past statements regarding Internet or
cybersecurity makes me wonder and/or be very negatively
concerned as to how up to snuff they really are and if they
have been following any of the following URL's from this link:
http://news.ists.dartmouth.edu/todaysnews.html#internal6767
Unless I miss my guess, they have not...  For instance in a
letter/e-mail from Richard Clark, the presidents cybersecurity
czar I received the following comment:

"Jeff, Thank you for keeping me abreast of your concerns and ideas
concerning Internet security issues concerns.  I share many of them
with you.  I am very concerned that ICANN is up to the task and   "

[email-masked] wrote:

> Now this here is exactly what our staff should be writing.
> What an intelligent assinign pig.
> Oh i'm sorry, I forgot this idiot is in charge of security.
>
> What a shame!
> e
>
> [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > By all means.  Set up your own mailing list, outside the control of
> > ICANN -- you can hold your votes on it.  Since you claim that the GA is
> > powerless, and also since, according to you, the only thing that matters
> > is power anyway, I don't see why you remain subscribed to the GA list at
> > all -- seems like according to your own standards, it's just a waste of
> > time.  :-)
> >
> > Kent
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:18:54 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Byfield on GA Reform / comments

At 04:41 a.m. 10/09/2002 +0200, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:
>On 02:01 10/09/02, Karl Auerbach said:
>>The second proposition would be to establish a mailing list *outside* of
>>the control of ICANN and the DNSO.  ICANN can't object - isn't such
>>"outside" organization one of the goals of the ALAC?
>
>Unfrotunately we have had that a time: it was named the IDNO, then it was 
>named the @large. The fist failed because Joop's polling booth was too 
>sophisticated, the second is failiong because Joanna has no polling system 
>at all. GA fails because Thomas has control on the polling system.
>
>If we add all these experiences, the real issue is to develop a good 
>motion system that peole would enjoy using. I had the chance as a PO of 
>the IDNO to observe how such a system might work (a very, very simple 
>e-mailing plus a vote reader). But it needs automated motion support, 
>filing and reporting. Most of all an humble and efficient Chairmanship 
>respecting the voters and the rules. What I never saw a Chair able to do 
>when confronted to real life pressure.
>
>So, I came to the conclusion that a Chair must be a machine - to be 
>neutral; timely etc. and the real Chair has just to make it work or to 
>control it. This is the only way to have the decorum. But it calls for a 
>real development.

Jefsey,

When you set it up the way you propose, *the code will become the law*.
All very fine if the developers of the code would have sophisticated 
understanding of issues of administrative and constitutional Law and be 
utterly trustworthy and neutral.

Fatal, if the current fights for control would simply extend to the 
development of the software.

- --Joop

- --
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, 10 Sep 2002 02:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Abraham Ingersoll <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] joesworld.com saga continues

Well, well, well .. YesNIC has responded.

Now YesNIC says they're "reconstructing" their system. Yeah right! 
The domain has been in the "No match" state since at least 2001/Apr/09 
01:57:41 PM - probably even longer. Since Apr 2001, I've made almost 30 
attempts to order the domain. Each time I tried, my OpenSRS 
RSP (Registration Service Provider) account would log the order as 
failed, noting "Domain Taken." I swear that every time I'd try to order, 
YesNic's whois server would return "No Match."

Note the CC to Dan Halloran, ICANN's "Chief Registrar Liaison." Perhaps 
submitting a whois failure report through internic.net actually does go 
somewhere, even though the "Status Query Result" of my complaint still 
just says "confirmed" .. ?

Abe

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:33:18 +0900
From: "Kang,In-Soon" <[email-masked]>
To: Abraham Ingersoll <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: joesworld.com

Dear Abraham Ingersoll 

I apologize for the late reply.
We are currently reconstruturing our system and we are about to complete.
At the completion of the reconstruction, we will release the WHOIS information.
Thank you.

Kind Regards,
Jason

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Abraham Ingersoll" <[email-masked]>
To: "Kang,In-Soon" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 2:35 AM
Subject: Re: joesworld.com

> 
> Hello Mr. Lee,
> 
> I'm not interested in buying the domain directly from the current 
> owner. I'm interested in when exactly the current registration expires - 
> something that your whois servers SHOULD tell me.
> 
> When I query to root whois server for joesworld.com, it returns a referal
> to whois.yesnic.net. Yet when I query your whois database for the name 
> 'joesworld.com', it currently says "No match" --
> 
>    Domain Name: JOESWORLD.COM
>    Registrar: YESNIC CO. LTD.
>    Whois Server: whois.yesnic.com
>    Referral URL: http://www.yesnic.com
>    Name Server: No nameserver
>    Updated Date: 16-apr-2002
> 
> 
> http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#3.3.1
> http://www.internic.net/cgi/rpt_whois/rpt.cgi
> 
> As per your accreditation agreement with ICANN, please provide me with
> exact whois data for the domain joesworld.com.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Abraham Ingersoll <[email-masked]>
> 
> 
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Kang,In-Soon wrote:
> 
> > Dear Abraham
> > 
> > Thank you for contacting YesNIC.
> > I have been manage to contact the owner of 'joesworld.com' domain name but I am afraid that I am not allowed to release the contact information.
> > However, the owner is my client and has appointed me as his agent to proceed this deal for the domain name with you.
> > Hence, if you wish to purchase this domain name, please let me know how much you are willing to invest.
> > Once you give me your proposed price, I will consult about it with my client and try to actively negotiate with you.
> > Thank you.
> > 
> > Kind Regards,
> > Jason Lee
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Abraham Ingersoll" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 1:35 AM
> > Subject: joesworld.com
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > I wish to buy 'joesworld.com', yet it seems that the domain is "taken", 
> > > even though your whois system FAILS to provide contact information for the 
> > > current owner.
> > > 
> > > What is wrong with your systems? Could you please release joesworld.com so 
> > > that I may buy it?
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Abraham Ingersoll <[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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:05:09 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] joesworld.com saga continues

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, at 02:58 [=GMT-0700], Abraham Ingersoll wrote:

> Note the CC to Dan Halloran, ICANN's "Chief Registrar Liaison." Perhaps
> submitting a whois failure report through internic.net actually does go
> somewhere, even though the "Status Query Result" of my complaint still
> just says "confirmed" .. ?

This means that it is stored somewhere, and that you completed the form
correctly. I am not sure the next stage (a human looking at it?) is
already implemented. And will it be implemented? Or is this whole exercize
part of ICANN's politicking to get its contact with DoC renewed?

- --
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, 10 Sep 2002 13:25:35 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Staff above Board? (Re: [ga] Re: Byfield on GA Reform / comments)

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, at 19:41 [=GMT-0700], [email-masked] wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 05:01:36PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > One can propose a proposition and hold an election.  You don't need
> > permission.  It would be interesting indeed to see if the holding of such
> > an election were to be censored by the list "moderators".
> >
> > I suggest the first proposition be something like this:
> >
> >  We, the assembled GA, declare that we are a fully empowered body;  We
> >  assert the right to establish our own agenda and procedures and to elect
> >  and recall our own officers.
> >
> > The second proposition would be to establish a mailing list *outside* of
> > the control of ICANN and the DNSO.  ICANN can't object - isn't such
> > "outside" organization one of the goals of the ALAC?
>
> By all means.  Set up your own mailing list, outside the control of
> ICANN -- you can hold your votes on it.  Since you claim that the GA is
> powerless, and also since, according to you, the only thing that matters
> is power anyway, I don't see why you remain subscribed to the GA list at
> all -- seems like according to your own standards, it's just a waste of
> time.  :-)

Is the above message from an ICANN staff member an indication that they
are above the Board? Most organizations would sack an employee speaking up
like this.

Also it is considered very bad manners, at least in Europe, for employees
to participate in policy discussions on an executive level, in public.

Thanks, Kent, for showing us, how it works in ICANN.

- --
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, 10 Sep 2002 17:35:05 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Byfield on GA Reform / comments

Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>To borrow a trademarked phrase: if you need an election then "just do it"!
>
>One can propose a proposition and hold an election.  You don't need
>permission.  It would be interesting indeed to see if the holding of such
>an election were to be censored by the list "moderators".
>
>I suggest the first proposition be something like this:
>
>  We, the assembled GA, declare that we are a fully empowered body;  We
>  assert the right to establish our own agenda and procedures and to elect
>  and recall our own officers.
>
>The second proposition would be to establish a mailing list *outside* of
>the control of ICANN and the DNSO.  ICANN can't object - isn't such
>"outside" organization one of the goals of the ALAC?
>

I have a third proposition: to elect in this *outside* mailing list the new 
ICANN Directors that will replace the current Board as of Shanghai.
Actually, we could even hold an alternative meeting in Tombouctou and build 
an alternative ICANN. I propose a name: "NEWco".

I agree with you (Karl) when you say:
>As I read this discussion, it seems to me that it is between those who are
>willing to accept a subordinate and nearly voiceless status and those who
>are not.
>

Where we disagree is in the identification on the actions that will make the 
GA voiceless or not. To move the folks somewhere else, outside ICANN, will 
IMHO silence the little voice that the GA still has.

An example.
I have always opposed the principle of a GA whose Chairperson is elected by 
the NC, and not by the GA itself. But in practice when the election for my 
successor was taking place, I spent a lot of time emailing and talking to NC 
members to make the point that to elect a person that was not the candidate 
expressed by the GA (Danny Younger) would have been politically unwise. 
Philip Shepard, for instance, told me that he could interpret the role of 
the NC as the role of the Queen of England, who has to officially appoint 
the Prime Minister elected by the people of England.
That was to me good enough, and a better deal than to raise the matter of 
principle.
One can question whether the GA has been voiceful or voiceless up to now, 
but the real question you raise is whether by acting as a body separated 
from the DNSO and ICANN it would have been more or less successful.
My opinion is that it has been more successful staying in the structure. At 
least we are on public record, on the DNSO Web site, for having said what we 
have said in the years. Not much, but something more than the alternative, 
which would have been zero.

Best 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1414
*************************