Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1415
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST        Thursday, September 12 2002        Volume 01 : Number 1415

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:31:52 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> Of Karen Elizaga
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 1:47 PM

> HI Ross,
> 
> Thanks for your follow up questions (which appear below).  

<snip>

Karen - thanks for the clarifications, these answers combined with your
response to the ICANN staff (answering similar questions) helped clear
things up to a large degree for me.

One statement in your supplemental response to the evaluation team
jumped out at me however...

"We alone have designed, developed and operated most of the SRS
solutions internally, ranging from the EPP toolkit, protocol independent
business logic and near-real time updates on DNS, Whois and MX. "

The EPP toolkit that you reference above - is this the same code that is
being developed by the Universal R/RTK project over at Sourceforge under
a GPL license? (http://sourceforge.net/projects/epp-rtk) or has GNR
opted to instead provide a proprietary RTK to its registrars instead of
the public version? What is the plan in this regard if GNR is successful
with the .org bid?

Thanks in advance,

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow

- --
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 12:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Byfield on GA Reform / comments

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> 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.

The GA, and the at-large, are being drained of what little power they ever 
had by virtue of ICANN's "reform".

So one has a choice of places: Within ICANN and without hope, or outside 
ICANN where there is at least a possibility.

ICANN has recognized only external power structures - the intellectual 
property organizations, corporations engaged in certain businesses, etc.

There is no reason why those who are concerned with the users of the 
Internet can not organize themselves, outside of ICANN, and act as a bloc.

This, of course, in no way reduces ICANN's forgotten obligation to have
publicly elected persons on its decision making bodies.

I *am* interested in the formation of an Internet Union of Internet Users
(IUIU) that would serve as the voice of internet users in all the various
internet governance bodies, ICANN being merely the earliest , that will
arise over the next few years.

The question is whether the voice of the public interest should allow 
itself to be placed into a sealed box by ICANN, the Names Council, or 
ICANN's contractors and "staff" or whether the voice of the public 
interest should organize itself where it can do so effectively.

ICANN's "reform" plan throw the public voice into the dungeon where the
best it can do is tap on the door and beg for sustenance.  Were the public
to organize outside of ICANN, it could come back and knock on the ICANN
gates with an irrestable battering ram.

		--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: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)

Ross,

Didn't GNR develop a epp tool kit in c++? and isn't this toolkit available
on the same page as yours?

- -rick

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> > Of Karen Elizaga
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 1:47 PM
>
> > HI Ross,
> >
> > Thanks for your follow up questions (which appear below).
>
> <snip>
>
> Karen - thanks for the clarifications, these answers combined with your
> response to the ICANN staff (answering similar questions) helped clear
> things up to a large degree for me.
>
> One statement in your supplemental response to the evaluation team
> jumped out at me however...
>
> "We alone have designed, developed and operated most of the SRS
> solutions internally, ranging from the EPP toolkit, protocol independent
> business logic and near-real time updates on DNS, Whois and MX. "
>
> The EPP toolkit that you reference above - is this the same code that is
> being developed by the Universal R/RTK project over at Sourceforge under
> a GPL license? (http://sourceforge.net/projects/epp-rtk) or has GNR
> opted to instead provide a proprietary RTK to its registrars instead of
> the public version? What is the plan in this regard if GNR is successful
> with the .org bid?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
>
>                        -rwr
>
>
>
>
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
>
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
>
> Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
> http://www.byte.org/heathrow
>
>
> --
> 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, 10 Sep 2002 17:12:34 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)

Don't know - hence the question ;)

Seriously - I have zero awareness of the status of the R/RTK project and
the status of the individual contributions as each relate to what the
specific registry operators are actually doing with the code (or not
doing as the case may be). My request is simply to clarify which code
GNR is referring to in their supplemental response.

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Wesson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 5:00 PM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader
> Cc: 'Karen Elizaga'; 'DNSO General Assembly'
> Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ross,
> 
> Didn't GNR develop a epp tool kit in c++? and isn't this 
> toolkit available on the same page as yours?
> 
> -rick
> 
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> 
> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
> > > Karen Elizaga
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 1:47 PM
> >
> > > HI Ross,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your follow up questions (which appear below).
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Karen - thanks for the clarifications, these answers combined with 
> > your response to the ICANN staff (answering similar 
> questions) helped 
> > clear things up to a large degree for me.
> >
> > One statement in your supplemental response to the evaluation team 
> > jumped out at me however...
> >
> > "We alone have designed, developed and operated most of the SRS 
> > solutions internally, ranging from the EPP toolkit, protocol 
> > independent business logic and near-real time updates on DNS, Whois 
> > and MX. "
> >
> > The EPP toolkit that you reference above - is this the same 
> code that 
> > is being developed by the Universal R/RTK project over at 
> Sourceforge 
> > under a GPL license? 
> (http://sourceforge.net/projects/epp-rtk) or > has 
> > GNR opted 
> to instead provide a proprietary RTK to its registrars 
> > instead of the public version? What is the plan in this 
> regard if GNR 
> > is successful with the .org bid?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> >
> >                        -rwr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the 
> shore like an 
> > idiot."
> > - Steven Wright
> >
> > Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
> >
> > Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal: 
> http://www.byte.org/heathrow
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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, 10 Sep 2002 20:00:11 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: rc-irdx-090302-v1r2d7.doc

Ross, the draft language still uses the phrase "the ICANN DNSO Registrars 
Constituency proposes that member Registrars voluntarily adopt the following 
proposal".

Doesn't all of your work to resolve the issue of transfers go into the toilet 
if a certain large registrar decides not to voluntarily adopt the proposal?  

As a matter of policy, I don't want to leave compliance to the arbitrary 
discretion of the registrar.  What is called for is a binding solution, a 
"consensus policy" that is obligatory upon all registrars and which is 
enforceable by ICANN.  This would mean placing the policy language into the 
Registrar Accreditation Agreement to which ICANN is a signatory instead of 
allowing it to remain as an exhibit within the registry-registrar agreements 
to which ICANN is not a signatory.

As ICANN has recently committed itself to enforcement of the RAA, (see 
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-03sep02.htm ) the financial 
burden of enforcement would then not fall upon the shoulders of either the 
registrars or registries, but rather upon ICANN itself -- which is a win-win 
for both of your constituencies.  

I would like to see a recommendation emerge to relocate the policy language 
into the RAA where it properly belongs. 

- --
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 20:15:30 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: rc-irdx-090302-v1r2d7.doc

> Ross, the draft language still uses the phrase "the ICANN DNSO Registrars
> Constituency proposes that member Registrars voluntarily adopt the
following
> proposal".

Thanks for picking that out - its left over from an earlier draft and has no
place in this one. If you see sloppiness in other areas, let me know.

> I would like to see a recommendation emerge to relocate the policy
language
> into the RAA where it properly belongs.

Personally speaking, so would I. This seems to be an emerging (lower case
"c") consensus - I wouldn't be surprised if this is where we end up.

Thanks for the feedback.

                     -rwr

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: rc-irdx-090302-v1r2d7.doc

> Ross, the draft language still uses the phrase "the ICANN DNSO Registrars
> Constituency proposes that member Registrars voluntarily adopt the
following
> proposal".
>
> Doesn't all of your work to resolve the issue of transfers go into the
toilet
> if a certain large registrar decides not to voluntarily adopt the
proposal?
>
> As a matter of policy, I don't want to leave compliance to the arbitrary
> discretion of the registrar.  What is called for is a binding solution, a
> "consensus policy" that is obligatory upon all registrars and which is
> enforceable by ICANN.  This would mean placing the policy language into
the
> Registrar Accreditation Agreement to which ICANN is a signatory instead of
> allowing it to remain as an exhibit within the registry-registrar
agreements
> to which ICANN is not a signatory.
>
> As ICANN has recently committed itself to enforcement of the RAA, (see
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-03sep02.htm ) the
financial
> burden of enforcement would then not fall upon the shoulders of either the
> registrars or registries, but rather upon ICANN itself -- which is a
win-win
> for both of your constituencies.
>
> I would like to see a recommendation emerge to relocate the policy
language
> into the RAA where it properly belongs.
>
>

- --
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 21:45:44 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Pisanty endorsement

Endorsement for Pisanty.

Criticism for endorsing Pisanty.

I don't get it.  Mr. Pisanty seems to have worked hard.
He does not seem to have rubber stamped BoD rulings.
While I do not agree to all his votes it seems he
worked harder than most.
In my personal dealings with him he has shown a great
deal of kindness and love.  The guy seems to care.
Maybe I am out there but I like him.
Good luck proving me wrong.

And as far as a Mexican versus and Indian, and distinction seems to be
pure racism.

No I am pleased with our present BoD or anyone who sits on it, but that
does not mean that Alejandro is a bad person.  Glass houses and throwing
stones and pointing fingers is a bad game.
Funny no one nominated me for the board?  go figure.
e
- --
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: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 01:17:58 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Consensus Policy Process

Marilyn,

In order to achieve a "consensus policy", one of the obligations is to 
provide a written report and supporting materials (which must include all 
substantive submissions to the Supporting Organization relating to the 
proposal) that (i) documents the extent of agreement and disagreement among 
impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to achieve 
adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely to be 
impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of reasoned support 
and opposition to the proposed specification or policy.

In view of the fact that Network Solutions, Namesecure.com, BB Online UK Ltd. 
and Registrars.com voted against the previous iteration of the draft last 
October, it would be reasonable to assume that they might still consider 
themselves to be "impacted groups".  My questions:

1.  Has the Task Force documented the extent of disagreement, if any, 
expressed by these parties?  If not, when do you intend to get this 
accomplished?
2.  What outreach process will the Task Force be using to achieve adequate 
representation of the views of these groups?  Have any of these parties 
participated in the drafting of the current set of proposals?  If not, why 
were they excluded?
3.  What outreach process will the Task Force be using to achieve adequate 
representation of the views of registrants?  I would think that two-day 
advance notice of an open teleconference only posted by the DNSO Secretariat, 
and not on the ICANN site itself, hardly constitutes an outreach that 
achieves "adequate representation".  What do you consider to be an "adequate" 
amount of representation?
4.  How does the TF intend to document the nature and intensity of the 
opposition of these registrars, if any, to the proposed policy?  Has the TF 
formally asked any of these folks for their opinions as yet?  If not, when do 
you plan to do so?  How much time will be allotted for these parties to 
provide a response?  
5.  Your terms of reference require you to develop broad understanding across 
the NC of the issues underlying the
disputed area of transfers of domain names between registrars -- where are 
each of those issues listed, identified and analyzed?
6.  Your terms of reference also require the TF to identify any broad policy 
issues (separate from contract issues), which
are the responsibility of the DNSO -- where are those broad policy issues 
articulated within the current documents?
7.  Will you ever honor the bylaws and post a timeline for this TF?

- --
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: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 10:36:32 +0100
From: "Karen Elizaga" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)

Dear Ross,

The EPP Toolkit we developed is provided as part of the SouceForge project you refer to (http://souceforge.net/projects/epp-rtk).  The Global Name Registry team developed internally the C++ version of the EPP Toolkit, together with extensions to the Java toolkit (these extensions are also available from the same page), and have been active participants in discussing and evolving API that is common to the C++ and Java versions of the EPP Toolkit. 
I
  hope that's helpful.

Regards.
KE

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 10 September 2002 22:13
To: 'Rick Wesson'
Cc: Karen Elizaga; 'DNSO General Assembly'
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)

Don't know - hence the question ;)

Seriously - I have zero awareness of the status of the R/RTK project and
the status of the individual contributions as each relate to what the
specific registry operators are actually doing with the code (or not
doing as the case may be). My request is simply to clarify which code
GNR is referring to in their supplemental response.

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Wesson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 5:00 PM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader
> Cc: 'Karen Elizaga'; 'DNSO General Assembly'
> Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ross,
> 
> Didn't GNR develop a epp tool kit in c++? and isn't this 
> toolkit available on the same page as yours?
> 
> -rick
> 
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> 
> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
> > > Karen Elizaga
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 1:47 PM
> >
> > > HI Ross,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your follow up questions (which appear below).
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Karen - thanks for the clarifications, these answers combined with 
> > your response to the ICANN staff (answering similar 
> questions) helped 
> > clear things up to a large degree for me.
> >
> > One statement in your supplemental response to the evaluation team 
> > jumped out at me however...
> >
> > "We alone have designed, developed and operated most of the SRS 
> > solutions internally, ranging from the EPP toolkit, protocol 
> > independent business logic and near-real time updates on DNS, Whois 
> > and MX. "
> >
> > The EPP toolkit that you reference above - is this the same 
> code that 
> > is being developed by the Universal R/RTK project over at 
> Sourceforge 
> > under a GPL license? 
> (http://sourceforge.net/projects/epp-rtk) or > has 
> > GNR opted 
> to instead provide a proprietary RTK to its registrars 
> > instead of the public version? What is the plan in this 
> regard if GNR 
> > is successful with the .org bid?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> >
> >                        -rwr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the 
> shore like an 
> > idiot."
> > - Steven Wright
> >
> > Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
> >
> > Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal: 
> http://www.byte.org/heathrow
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> 

Information contained herein is Global Name Registry Proprietary Information and is made available to you because of your interest in our company.    This information is submitted in confidence and its disclosure to you is not intended to constitute public disclosure or authorization for disclosure to other parties.
*****************
What's your .name?
Get one at www.name
*****************

- --
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: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:19:50 -0400
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus Policy Process

Danny,

Thanks for pointing this out.  Just to let you know, we are on top of the
requirements for this to be a "consensus policy."  Before we can document
what is required, we need to finish and finalize the substance of the actual
recommendations.  Only then can we document the total outreach, the extent
of disagreement amongst impacted groups, etc. as you have mentioned.

With respect to the timeline, I will leave that answer to our Chairman, but
I encourage you to voice your onions on the call today.

Thanks. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 1:18 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Consensus Policy Process

Marilyn,

In order to achieve a "consensus policy", one of the obligations is to 
provide a written report and supporting materials (which must include all 
substantive submissions to the Supporting Organization relating to the 
proposal) that (i) documents the extent of agreement and disagreement among 
impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to achieve

adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely to be 
impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of reasoned support 
and opposition to the proposed specification or policy.

In view of the fact that Network Solutions, Namesecure.com, BB Online UK
Ltd. 
and Registrars.com voted against the previous iteration of the draft last 
October, it would be reasonable to assume that they might still consider 
themselves to be "impacted groups".  My questions:

1.  Has the Task Force documented the extent of disagreement, if any, 
expressed by these parties?  If not, when do you intend to get this 
accomplished?
2.  What outreach process will the Task Force be using to achieve adequate 
representation of the views of these groups?  Have any of these parties 
participated in the drafting of the current set of proposals?  If not, why 
were they excluded?
3.  What outreach process will the Task Force be using to achieve adequate 
representation of the views of registrants?  I would think that two-day 
advance notice of an open teleconference only posted by the DNSO
Secretariat, 
and not on the ICANN site itself, hardly constitutes an outreach that 
achieves "adequate representation".  What do you consider to be an
"adequate" 
amount of representation?
4.  How does the TF intend to document the nature and intensity of the 
opposition of these registrars, if any, to the proposed policy?  Has the TF 
formally asked any of these folks for their opinions as yet?  If not, when
do 
you plan to do so?  How much time will be allotted for these parties to 
provide a response?  
5.  Your terms of reference require you to develop broad understanding
across 
the NC of the issues underlying the
disputed area of transfers of domain names between registrars -- where are 
each of those issues listed, identified and analyzed?
6.  Your terms of reference also require the TF to identify any broad policy

issues (separate from contract issues), which
are the responsibility of the DNSO -- where are those broad policy issues 
articulated within the current documents?
7.  Will you ever honor the bylaws and post a timeline for this TF?

- --
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: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:20:50 -0400
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus Policy Process

OK, its early.... 

I value your "opinions", not "onions."  Sometimes, spell checker can be a
detriment :)

- -----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff 
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 8:20 AM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus Policy Process

Danny,

Thanks for pointing this out.  Just to let you know, we are on top of the
requirements for this to be a "consensus policy."  Before we can document
what is required, we need to finish and finalize the substance of the actual
recommendations.  Only then can we document the total outreach, the extent
of disagreement amongst impacted groups, etc. as you have mentioned.

With respect to the timeline, I will leave that answer to our Chairman, but
I encourage you to voice your onions on the call today.

Thanks. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 1:18 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Consensus Policy Process

Marilyn,

In order to achieve a "consensus policy", one of the obligations is to 
provide a written report and supporting materials (which must include all 
substantive submissions to the Supporting Organization relating to the 
proposal) that (i) documents the extent of agreement and disagreement among 
impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to achieve

adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely to be 
impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of reasoned support 
and opposition to the proposed specification or policy.

In view of the fact that Network Solutions, Namesecure.com, BB Online UK
Ltd. 
and Registrars.com voted against the previous iteration of the draft last 
October, it would be reasonable to assume that they might still consider 
themselves to be "impacted groups".  My questions:

1.  Has the Task Force documented the extent of disagreement, if any, 
expressed by these parties?  If not, when do you intend to get this 
accomplished?
2.  What outreach process will the Task Force be using to achieve adequate 
representation of the views of these groups?  Have any of these parties 
participated in the drafting of the current set of proposals?  If not, why 
were they excluded?
3.  What outreach process will the Task Force be using to achieve adequate 
representation of the views of registrants?  I would think that two-day 
advance notice of an open teleconference only posted by the DNSO
Secretariat, 
and not on the ICANN site itself, hardly constitutes an outreach that 
achieves "adequate representation".  What do you consider to be an
"adequate" 
amount of representation?
4.  How does the TF intend to document the nature and intensity of the 
opposition of these registrars, if any, to the proposed policy?  Has the TF 
formally asked any of these folks for their opinions as yet?  If not, when
do 
you plan to do so?  How much time will be allotted for these parties to 
provide a response?  
5.  Your terms of reference require you to develop broad understanding
across 
the NC of the issues underlying the
disputed area of transfers of domain names between registrars -- where are 
each of those issues listed, identified and analyzed?
6.  Your terms of reference also require the TF to identify any broad policy

issues (separate from contract issues), which
are the responsibility of the DNSO -- where are those broad policy issues 
articulated within the current documents?
7.  Will you ever honor the bylaws and post a timeline for this TF?

- --
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: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:00:04 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Byfield on GA Reform / comments

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:01:33 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

>I *am* interested in the formation of an Internet Union of Internet Users
>(IUIU) that would serve as the voice of internet users in all the various
>internet governance bodies, ICANN being merely the earliest , that will
>arise over the next few years.

That, I guess, is what most of us are here for! However, it seems to
me that, no matter how much ICANN is badly organized or corrupt, the
continued inability of the user representatives to work out a positive
relationship with the rest of the Internet technical and business
community will not help the user representation in any way. 

I am not saying that users need to be remissive, but that sometimes
being polite and practical and accepting compromises helps in building
long term reciprocal trust and thus gaining long term victories; and
even if a good number of ICANN "characters" do not deserve an ounce of
trust, thinking that all individuals participating in ICANN apart from
the users are selfish, corrupt and in bad faith is ridiculous. So we
should work to gain their support and sympathy, rather than to isolate
the users more and more; because the more we continue this struggle,
the more we get weak and isolated.

>ICANN's "reform" plan throw the public voice into the dungeon where the
>best it can do is tap on the door and beg for sustenance.  Were the public
>to organize outside of ICANN, it could come back and knock on the ICANN
>gates with an irrestable battering ram.

This is definitely a truth, yet in the last years there have been many
tentatives to build such "irresistible force", and not one went too
far (though icannatlarge.com potentially has good chances). I am tired
of waiting for reinforcements that never come. I think we have to
accept the fact that we lost a long row of battles in the last two
years, and to seek peace for a while; to use peace, not war, to
organize ourselves and to grow slowly but steadily, because it's easy
to gain people and support when you cry for war, but it's even easier
to lose them at the first defeat, and this is exactly what has been
happening to the At Large.
- -- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
- ----------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <--------------------------
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 22:46:49 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)

> Dear Ross,
>
> The EPP Toolkit we developed is provided as part of the SouceForge project
you refer to (http://souceforge.net/projects/epp-rtk).  The Global Name
Registry team developed internally the C++ version of the EPP Toolkit,
together with extensions to the Java toolkit (these extensions are also
available from the same page), and have been active participants in
discussing and evolving API that is common to the C++ and Java versions of
the EPP Toolkit.

Karen,

This might be too fine of a point to discuss here in the GA, but given the
community roots of the project, I think that its only fair that I speak out
on this point.

The epp-rtk project finds its roots in the broad agreement that it didn't
and doesn't make a ton of sense to have 7 new registries running 7 new
policy sets with 7 new protocols and 7 new interface toolkits. There are a
number of people and corporations that set out to address this from a
technical perspective. Verisign, GNR, Afilias, Tucows, Rick Wesson, Eric
Brunner-Wiiliams, Marshall Rose, Bruce Minor and dozens more have left their
mark on various aspects of this loosely defined effort. My point is not to
diminish GNR's contribution to the EPP R/RTK initiative, but simply to point
out that "...concerns about "rights" and "ownership" ... are inappropriate.
It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service" to
the community." (apologies to Postel). Or perhaps more succinctly, as Eric
Raymond points out[1], "according to the standard open-source licenses, all
parties are equals in the evolutionary game."

Given the time that Neulevel, Afilias, Verisign, GNR and others have devoted
to the development of the protocol, the resources that Afilias continues to
invest in the public EPP sandbox and the numerous developers (including GNR
staffers) that make the Universal R/RTK actual living, breathing community
code, I would simply request that GNR reconsider its public use of language
like ""We alone have designed, developed and operated most of the SRS
solutions internally, ranging from the EPP toolkit, protocol independent
business logic and near-real time updates on DNS..."

As with dotORG, the epp-rtk work also finds its roots in a community - some
of the same sensitivities must be kept in mind.

Thanks,

                     -rwr

[1] http://tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/homesteading/

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Karen Elizaga" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 5:36 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)

> Dear Ross,
>
> The EPP Toolkit we developed is provided as part of the SouceForge project
you refer to (http://souceforge.net/projects/epp-rtk).  The Global Name
Registry team developed internally the C++ version of the EPP Toolkit,
together with extensions to the Java toolkit (these extensions are also
available from the same page), and have been active participants in
discussing and evolving API that is common to the C++ and Java versions of
the EPP Toolkit.
> I
>   hope that's helpful.
>
> Regards.
> KE
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 10 September 2002 22:13
> To: 'Rick Wesson'
> Cc: Karen Elizaga; 'DNSO General Assembly'
> Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)
>
>
> Don't know - hence the question ;)
>
> Seriously - I have zero awareness of the status of the R/RTK project and
> the status of the individual contributions as each relate to what the
> specific registry operators are actually doing with the code (or not
> doing as the case may be). My request is simply to clarify which code
> GNR is referring to in their supplemental response.
>
>
>
>                        -rwr
>
>
>
>
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
>
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
>
> Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
> http://www.byte.org/heathrow
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rick Wesson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 5:00 PM
> > To: Ross Wm. Rader
> > Cc: 'Karen Elizaga'; 'DNSO General Assembly'
> > Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ross,
> >
> > Didn't GNR develop a epp tool kit in c++? and isn't this
> > toolkit available on the same page as yours?
> >
> > -rick
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> >
> > > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> > > > Karen Elizaga
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 1:47 PM
> > >
> > > > HI Ross,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your follow up questions (which appear below).
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Karen - thanks for the clarifications, these answers combined with
> > > your response to the ICANN staff (answering similar
> > questions) helped
> > > clear things up to a large degree for me.
> > >
> > > One statement in your supplemental response to the evaluation team
> > > jumped out at me however...
> > >
> > > "We alone have designed, developed and operated most of the SRS
> > > solutions internally, ranging from the EPP toolkit, protocol
> > > independent business logic and near-real time updates on DNS, Whois
> > > and MX. "
> > >
> > > The EPP toolkit that you reference above - is this the same
> > code that
> > > is being developed by the Universal R/RTK project over at
> > Sourceforge
> > > under a GPL license?
> > (http://sourceforge.net/projects/epp-rtk) or > has
> > > GNR opted
> > to instead provide a proprietary RTK to its registrars
> > > instead of the public version? What is the plan in this
> > regard if GNR
> > > is successful with the .org bid?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > >
> > >
> > >                        -rwr
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the
> > shore like an
> > > idiot."
> > > - Steven Wright
> > >
> > > Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
> > >
> > > Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
> > http://www.byte.org/heathrow
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> Information contained herein is Global Name Registry Proprietary
Information and is made available to you because of your interest in our
company.    This information is submitted in confidence and its disclosure
to you is not intended to constitute public disclosure or authorization for
disclosure to other parties.
> *****************
> What's your .name?
> Get one at www.name
> *****************
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1415
*************************