Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1429
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Friday, September 20 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1429

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 01:08:00 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ICANN, The Troika & Fraud

When ICANN posted the "Community Communications to US Department of Commerce 
on ICANN Evolution and Reform", I remember scanning through the page quickly 
and noting the comments by assorted registries, registrars, and by what was 
purported to be "Various Private-Sector Organizations".  

Upon taking a closer look at the private sector letter (posted at 
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/private-sector-organizations-to-us

doc-04sep02.htm ), one notes that these aren't just a random set of 
publicly-spirited organizations that have heeded the call as good corporate 
citizens to communicate with the DoC -- instead, every organizational 
signatory just happens to be a member of the Troika (the coalition of the BC, 
IPC and ISP constituencies that meet together as a group at every ICANN 
session and always manage to vote together as a single bloc in the DNSO).  
The signatories to this letter:  

American Intellectual Property Law Association
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
AT&T Corporation
Broadcast Music Inc. 
BT North America, Inc.
CABASE
ECOM-LAC 
International Trademark Association
Internet Commerce Coalition
Internet Software Consortium, Inc.
Motion Picture Association of America
RNA Associates 
Software and Information Industry Association 
The Darwin Group
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
US Internet Industry Association 
Verizon Communications Inc.
WorldCom, Inc.

One has to wonder if the Motion Picture Association of America or the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, among others, are even aware of this letter -- there is 
certainly no mention of the letter on any of their respective websites, no 
mention in the "recent news" portion of their sites, no announcement, 
nothing...  you can't even find a reference to it using their internal 
website search functions.  Did any of these esteemed organizations actually 
see this letter, did any of their members or Executive Committees vote upon 
and endorse this letter, or is this nothing more than a vile fraud 
perpetrated by those in the Troika that appended an organizational signature 
onto this letter without any legitimate or proper authorization?

AT&T Corporation has no press release regarding this letter in support of 
ICANN reform, neither does the US Internet Industry Association, nor Verizon 
Communications, nor does any other signatory to this letter.  Hmmm... I 
wonder why?  

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which claims to represent 3,000,000 businesses 
through 3,000 state and local chambers and 830 business associations along 
with 94 American Chambers of Commerce in 82 countries, somehow manages to 
suddenly endorse ICANN reform even while their website has only one brief 
article on ICANN apparently written four years ago.  So... do 3 million U.S. 
businesses in fact endorse the ICANN reform, or did perhaps someone on the BC 
just add the name of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce onto this list of 
signatories without any formal authorization to do so?

Rather than sending a letter with their personal signatures, those that sent 
this letter (and those that posted the letter) are perpetrating a fraud.  
They are telling both the DoC and the Congressmen cc'd in the letter that 
major U.S. Corporations and Associations formally support and endorse ICANN 
and its reform initiative -- and this is a bald-faced lie.

But what else can we possibly expect from those that feed at the ICANN trough?
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 00:20:39 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fwd: LACTLD comments on Zone Transfers

>We, on the other hand, think that it is just not realistic to think
>that anything resembling normal operation of a ccTLD could be attempted
>using the zone file alone. So, fears and hopes about what can be done
>with the zone file in terms of forced redelegations are, in our view,
>greatly exaggerated.

Unless ICANN has used that zone file data to slowly and quietly walk
through your WHOIS database to take a copy of all the ownership data as
well.

THEN you're ripe for a redelegation.

I wasn't happy with the way ICANN was being run 3 years ago. I'm even LESS
ahppy with what they've evolved into now. I wouldn't let them ANYWHERE NEAR
my zone files if I was running a ccTLD.

If I had a domain within a ccTLD, I'd be VERY UPSET with the delegated
authority if they were supplying ICANN with the full zone file.

Got that, Domainz/InternetNZ??? :^)

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 00:33:11 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Update On Whois Enforcement

At 1:36 PM +1200 9/20/02, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>This is the truly frightening part.
>How much chance are registrants given for "timely" complying?

I seem to recall times in the past where NSI's WHOIS output has become
hopelessly garbled.

If I was a registrant who had paid for 10 years of registration (just to be
safe) and then had my domain deleted because NSI's WHOIS became garbled and
someone complained, I'd be pretty annoyed.

And powerless, since the registrars are allowed to weasle out of their
responsibilities via one-sided contracts.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 09:39:18 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Business Constituency

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_00DD_01C26089.973341A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Just for the record.
The Business Constituency is alive and well.
Over 98% of members renewed their fees in 2002 and new members joined. =
See the web site for the membership list. Following next week's BC =
conference call, the BC will immediately publish its position on the ERC =
second implementation report. Discussion on the BC e-mail lists this =
week has covered the ERC, board election, transfers and deletes, and cc =
registrations.  The BC list is moderated and free of invective. Our =
members seem to like it that way.

Philip Sheppard
BC Constituency

- ------=_NextPart_000_00DD_01C26089.973341A0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Just for the record.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The Business Constituency is alive and =
well.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Over 98% of members renewed their fees in 2002 and =
new members=20
joined. See the web site for the membership list. Following&nbsp;next =
week's BC=20
conference call, the BC will immediately publish its position on the ERC =
second=20
implementation report. </FONT><FONT size=3D2>Discussion on the BC e-mail =
lists=20
this week has covered the ERC,&nbsp;board election,&nbsp;transfers and =
deletes,=20
and&nbsp;cc registrations.&nbsp; </FONT><FONT size=3D2>The BC list is =
moderated=20
and free of invective. Our members seem to like it that =
way.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip Sheppard</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>BC Constituency</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_00DD_01C26089.973341A0--

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 10:22:14 +0200
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> (By way of [email-masked])
Subject: [ga] Re: [ecdiscuss] US Cyberspace Security Draft

Phillip and all,

  Excellent and informative response here Phil.  Well done!
I am taking the liberty of also sending this along with my comments
and observations to the DOC/NTIA folks responsible, the DNSO
GA, and the Cyberspace Security Draft folks for their consideration
as well.

======== Some of my response comments follow ======

  Indeed the problem you outline is a real one for .COM and the
implementation of DNSSEC for .COM.  Agreed the DNSEXT
working group of the IETF, of which I am on but not very active
of late, has been taken over as you rightly indicate by those
that are anti-Verisign and have let that fact blind them to the
potential fix for DNSSEC that is very workable.  As such,
and amongst a number of other areas such as IPSEC, it is
no small wonder that the current US Administration headed
up by Richard Clarke wishes or believes in the draft report,
that the IETF lost of is loosing it's way.  This too has IMHO
been very evident in several of the IETF's own general
mailing lists archives by various members participating.

  My concern and fear however in this report draft is that
should the IETF be taken over or replaced as indicated,
than the independence of technical standards will be
damaged, lost forever or politicized to the extent of being
harmful to the future of this medium, the internet...  Like ICANN,
the problem with the IETF is it's current leadership, and it's
club mentality and structure...  Those can be fixed however, but
would require some direct intervention of some sort unfortunately...

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> DNSSEC cannot be deployed in .com as presently specified.
>
> The current spec would increase the size of the in memory image
> of the zone file by six to eight times. Since the zone file
> is already 2-3 Gigabytes and the transaction volume is 6 billion
> lookups a day there is simply no way that the original proposal
> (now eight years old) is going to be deployed.
>
> There is a fix for this issue which provides the same degree
> of security. Certain members of the DNSEXT working group have
> been attempting to sabotage the fix for their own petty political
> ends, the argument being that the issue 'only affects one party'.
>
> Members of this faction have in the past stated that 'if .com
> is too big then that is the problem we should fix'.
>
> I assure you I am not making this up.
>
> Consensus was reached in the group to accept the OPTIN fix for
> the deployment. One of the chairs deliberately avoided stating
> that there was consensus by sending the OPTIN draft to the 'DNS
> Directorate' which is a body appointed by him and has not felt
> fit to share any of its discussions with the group.
>
> The faction appear to have the idea that VeriSign is somehow
> bound by its decisions which is why I have been saying, well
> err, no and particularly not if you are going to go about
> making those decisions in that fashion and after you have
> told me that you do not intend to take any notice of my
> requirements.
>
> The strategy, which has been stated in the WG meetings is that
> by preventing VeriSign from deploying DNSSEC the group will
> save the internet from VeriSign.
>
> Meanwhile take a read of Richard Clark's essay at the Whitehouse.
> Recommendations 4-1 through 4-4 essentially propose taking over
> the IETF if it does not do the administrations bidding.
>
> And yes, I know that I am not being all nice and friendly on
> the list. Mark Kosters tried that for six years. The only way
> to deal with this is to point out to the members of that group
> that I am not attending their meetings as a substitute social
> life and I am more than willing to match their tactics.
>
>                 Phill
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 1:22 AM
> > Cc: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ecdiscuss] US Cyberspace Security Draft
> >
> >
> > Nikolaj and all,
> >
> >   I frankly am wondering where Phillip got this strange idea?
> > Phillip, perhaps you could elaborate on what or how DNSSEC
> > is broken?
> >
> > Nikolaj Nyholm wrote:
> >
> > > While there have been reports on the recommendations of the
> > use of DNSSEC,
> > > it's somewhat of a paradox that, the chief scientist at
> > Verisign, Phill
> > > Hallam-Baker, recently declared that "DNSSEC in its current
> > form is BROKEN".
> > >
> > >
> > http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2002/msg01619.html
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Ascio Technologies Inc.
> > >
> > > Nikolaj Nyholm
> > > Vice President & CTO
> > >
> > > Digital identity weblog at
> > > http://weblog.digital-identity.info
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > > Sent: 18. september 2002 19:30
> > > > To: [email-masked]
> > > > Subject: [ecdiscuss] US Cyberspace Security Draft
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > an important document to read and probably discuss:
> > > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberstrategy-draft.pdf
> > > > jfc
> > > >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >

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: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 19:13:20 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fwd: LACTLD comments on Zone Transfers

At 12:20 a.m. 20/09/2002 -0500, Andy Gardner wrote:
> >We, on the other hand, think that it is just not realistic to think
> >that anything resembling normal operation of a ccTLD could be attempted
> >using the zone file alone. So, fears and hopes about what can be done
> >with the zone file in terms of forced redelegations are, in our view,
> >greatly exaggerated.
>
>Unless ICANN has used that zone file data to slowly and quietly walk
>through your WHOIS database to take a copy of all the ownership data as
>well.
>
>THEN you're ripe for a redelegation.

This was already done to the .nz WHOIS database by a bunch of Australian 
scammers/slammers  who called themselves ING. (now in liquidation)
Can't be all that difficult to cream a  relatively small ccTLD in that fashion.

- --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: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:17:53 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Shanghai: Tentative agenda for physical GA.

The General Assembly will take place on Tuesday morning (October 29) 
during ICANN's Shanghai meetings.  There will be three main agenda  
items on that morning:

 - WHOIS - news from the task force.  (about 1 hour)
 - Deletes - the issue paper recently circulated. (about 1 hour)

 - Transfers - presentations and open discussion; this is going to be 
   a mixture of a classical GA topic session with task force  
   presentation and a classical public forum.  (about 2 hours)

Details of the timing are still being worked on.  We hope for  
webcasting.  However, information from ICANN indicates that they are 
still looking for a sponsor for that part of the meetings.

Since it seems like both Alexander and I will be unable to directly  
participate in the Shanghai meetings, we have asked Elisabeth  
Porteneuve to chair this (probably) last physical General Assembly  
of the Domain Name Supporting Organization.

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 10:35:00 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Shanghai: Tentative agenda for physical GA.

Thomas,

An alternative recommendation:

Start with a Lamentation for the White Paper, followed by a Dirge for the 
General Assembly, leading up to a Burial Service for the At-Large (suitably 
wrapped in a Clean Sheet).  This can be followed by a festive tribute to the 
Illusion of Reform Committee and a Coronation of the Autocrats.

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 10:57:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> Just for the record. The Business Constituency is alive and well. Over
> 98% of members renewed their fees in 2002 and new members joined. See
> the web site for the membership list.
> [snip]

	For readers' information, that membership roll lists 34
individual, named businesses (two of which are Songbird and the Darwin
Group).  (Maybe fewer -- I couldn't always tell which of the members were
individual businesses, so I erred on the high side.)

	The BC also lists a set of associational members, and states that
the associational members extend its outreach directly to tens of
thousands of businesses worldwide.  The largest are WITSA (World
Information Technology and Service Alliance), which is said to have 20,000
members (actually, WITSA has no members other than national IT
associations, so presumably the 20,000 figure is an estimate of the number
of members WITSA's members have), and MEDEF (Mouvement des Enterprises de
France), which is said to have 10,000 French employers as members.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[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: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:35:42 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: MoU extended

http://www.icann.org/general/amend5-jpamou-19sep02.htm
ICANN and US Commerce Department Extend Agreement Through September 2003

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20sep02.htm
Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Department of Commerce 
and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Amendment 5

http://www.icann.org/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm
http://www.icann.org/nsi/amend1-jpamou-04nov99.htm
http://www.icann.org/general/amend2-jpamou-07sep00.htm
http://www.icann.org/general/amend3-jpamou-25may01.htm
http://www.icann.org/general/amend4-jpamou-24sep01.htm
Original MoU and Amendments 1-4

Best regards,
/// Alexander

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:50:50 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

Jon,

Philip also talks about the wonderful characteristics of his moderated BC 
mailing list, which include:

1.  Editing of messages by a moderator who is charged with "minimising the 
unnecessary and untidy correspondence characteristic of certain e-mail lists 
within the ICANN world."  This censorship is described as a "value-added 
service".

2.  The moderator is at liberty to composite replies on the same topic, 
change the subject line, remove trailing e-mails, or take any other action 
designed to make reading the e-mails simple for members (apparently BC 
members don't have the intellectual acumen to read their own e-mails without 
assistance).

3.  The moderator may engage in selective censorship by reserving the right 
to refuse all contributions as the moderator sees fit. 

4.  To discourage all discussion so that only BC reps can rule the roost, the 
moderator restricts member posts to only one per day.

5.  Most importantly, since the BC has absolutely no respect for ICANN Bylaws 
on transparency, the lists are not publicly archived (this helps to conceal 
the fact that discussion is almost non-existent, and allows the BC reps to 
make grandiose statements that "the BC position is..." when in fact no one 
has commented on the occasional drafts that have been put forth).

Further, the BC website claims that "through the ICC World Chamber Federation 
and the regional structure of MEDEF the BC outreaches to over 1.5 million 
companies worldwide."  

I wrote to the World Chamber Federation on this topic and they replied that 
they are not a member of the Business Constituency, although the ICC is such 
a member.  I also spoke on the phone to Ms. Ayesha Hassan whose team is 
responsible for managing ICC's work regarding ICANN.  It appears that the ICC 
has not engaged in any so-called "outreach" to its members to discuss 
BC-generated topics, nor have they participated in any meaningful fashion as 
yet in current BC activities.  They have a problem attempting to aggregate 
views from 130 different communities spanning the globe and their broad 
membership is frankly not even aware of their affiliation with the BC 
(although efforts are underway to overhaul their website to make it more 
user-friendly).  That said, the ICC does however sincerely seek to be more 
responsive, so perhaps the BC can one day actually begin to involve their 
paying members in the process instead of merely claiming that the payment of 
a membership fee instantly equates to the representation of millions of 
companies.  They referred me to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce person by the name 
of Marilyn Cade that could perhaps assist in answering additional questions.  

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:51:17 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Differences between MoUs 2000/2002

Here's a look at some of the differences between the new MoU
(amendment 5) and the 2000 MoU (amnendment 2).
http://www.icann.org/general/amend2-jpamou-07sep00.htm
http://www.icann.org/general/amend5-jpamou-19sep02.htm

Best regards,
/// Alexander

====================== OLD: Amendment 2 ======================
3. Continue to develop and test the ICANN Independent Review process to 
address claims by members of the Internet community that they have been 
adversely affected by decisions in conflict with ICANN's by-laws or 
contractual obligations. Report on ICANN's experience with the fully 
implemented reconsideration process and independent review process.
====================== NEW: Amendment 5 ======================
3. Continue to develop, to test, and to implement processes and 
procedures to improve transparency in the consideration and adoption of 
policies related to technical management of the DNS.

4. Continue to develop, to test, and to implement accountability 
mechanisms to address claims by members of the Internet community that 
they have been adversely affected by decisions in conflict with ICANN's 
by-laws, contractual obligations, or otherwise treated unfairly in the 
context of ICANN processes.
==============================================================

====================== NEW: Amendment 5 ======================
5.
[...]
[New section:]
ICANN shall submit a report to the Department no later than November 30, 
2002, providing a description of the current status of the root server 
system. ICANN shall submit a report to the Department no later than 
December 31, 2002, providing a description of the proposal for enhanced 
architecture for root server security as set forth above, a procedural 
plan for the transition to such enhanced architecture, and an 
implementation schedule for such transition.
==============================================================

====================== OLD: Amendment 2 ======================
6. ICANN will continue its efforts to achieve stable agreements with the 
organizations operating country-code top level domains that cover the 
delegation and redelegation issues; allocation of global and local 
policy-formulation responsibility; and the relationships among ccTLD 
operators, the relevant government of public authority.
====================== NEW: Amendment 5 ======================
7. Continue its efforts to achieve stable agreements with ccTLD operators 
that address, among other things, issues affecting the stable and secure 
operation of the DNS, including: delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs; 
allocation of global and local policy-formulation responsibility; and the 
relationship between a ccTLD operator and its relevant government or 
public authority. Such efforts shall include activities to foster greater 
dialogue between ccTLD operators and the GAC.
==============================================================

====================== OLD: Amendment 2 ======================
8. Continue the process of implementing new top level domains (TLDs), 
which process shall include consideration and evaluation of: 
[...]
b. The creation and implementation of minimum criteria for new and 
existing TLD registries.
[...]
d. Recommendations regarding trademark/domain name policies set forth in 
the Statement of Policy; recommendations made by the World Intellectual 
Property Organization (WIPO) and recommendations made by other 
independent organizations concerning trademark/domain name issues.
====================== NEW: Amendment 5 ======================
b. The creation and implementation of selection criteria for new and 
existing TLD registries, including public explanation of the process, 
selection criteria, and the rationale for selection decisions.
[...]
d. Recommendations from expert advisory panels, bodies, agencies, or 
organizations regarding economic, competition, trademark, and 
intellectual property issues.
==============================================================

====================== NEW: Amendment 5 ======================
[New section:]
9. Continue to develop, to test, and to implement appropriate mechanisms 
that foster informed participation in ICANN by the global Internet 
community.
==============================================================

====================== NEW: Amendment 5 ======================
[New section:]
11. Provide a status report on its progress towards the completion of its 
tasks under this Agreement on or before December 31, 2002, and at the end 
of each quarter thereafter for the term of this Agreement. Such report 
shall also describe the status of the implementation of ICANN's reform 
efforts.
==============================================================

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 18:14:16 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Differences between original MoU/MoU 2002

Here's more:

====================== NEW: Amendment 5 ======================
[new section:
7. Work collaboratively within ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to encourage the creation of stable agreements between ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). 
[...]
==============================================================

====================== NEW: Amendment 5 ======================
11. Consult with foreign governments to promote increased and more effective governmental participation in the GAC. Such activities shall include working with the GAC on steps governments should take to advance ICANN's efforts to achieve stable agreements with organizations operating country code top level domains (ccTLDs).
==============================================================

The DoC/NTIA has a press release and a long statement
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2002/icann_09192002.htm
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/docstatement_09192002.htm

Best regards,
/// Alexander

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 05:07:13 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN, The Troika & Fraud

Marilyn,
Did you write this letter?. If not, do you know who did? It seems odd that
it is not signed by any individual.

> Upon taking a closer look at the private sector letter (posted at
> http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/private-sector-organiz
> ations-to-us

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: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 07:13:03 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: FW: [ga] ICANN, The Troika & Fraud

Okay the URL is
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/private-sector-organizations-to-
usdoc-04sep02.htm

Watch the wrap.
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: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:26:39 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] in response to a question about a letter  regarding ICANN reform

Joanna, couldn't get the link to resolve. But, I'd like to be responsive to your question.

I changed the subject because I don't agree with the interpretation conveyed by the former subject line. :-) It seemed better to have a more neutral subject line so that we can facilitate an open discussion about any questions. 

SO, I will note that if you are asking about a letter which includes the names of several companies and associations addressed to Sec. Donald Evans, DOC, regarding views on the Evolution and Reform process,  and has AT&T's name along with several companies, associations, etc. and it involved AT&T's view and position on ICANN issues, then I would be the appropriate contact. 

The letter from these groups was a joint collaboration by the parties who signed it.  So, many parties contributed to the concepts of the initial drafting, and edits to achieve a  final version which could reflect the views of such a wide group of parties.  

I'm interested though in your thought that is was strange not to have names of individuals. In my experience, it is not strange at all for organizations to lend their organizational names, since really, when it comes down to positions, they are the positions of a company, organization, or group, not just a private view of an individual employee of such a group.

So, even though some  of us might  have a private view, it is really the view of a business, or organization or association that gets conveyed in such a letter. 

Does that help? Let  me know if you have further questions. Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 5:07 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN, The Troika & Fraud

Marilyn,
Did you write this letter?. If not, do you know who did? It seems odd that
it is not signed by any individual.

> Upon taking a closer look at the private sector letter (posted at
> http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/private-sector-organiz
> ations-to-us

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: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Lowering the Business Constituency Membership fee for micro-enterprises

Dear Marilyn,

Has there been any debate about whether to reduce the fees to join the
Business Constituency, to make it more inclusive for small businesses? 

While billion dollar companies can easily afford the 1500 Euros
(category 1 company, as per http://www.bizconst.org/bcjoin.htm ), for
smaller companies, even 250 Euros is a significant expenditure to join
as a category 3 firm (1/6th the fee of a Category 1 firm!).

I suspect that a lot of small firms would join if the fee was around
$50 or 50 euros (or even 25). Adding the voices of hundreds of small
businesses (who paid 50 euros) would add greater legitimacy to the
constituency as a forum for both large and small business alike, and
hopefully lead to better policy, instead of just the 50 or so current
member firms. Small firms make up a greater fraction of the economy
overall than the bigger ones.

Given that it costs very little for mailing lists, or discussion board
software (software like phpBB is free), the incremental costs of the
additional members would likely be minimal. Perhaps a poll or something
on the BC website, to ascertain how many folks would join at different
pricing levels would help?

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 16:08:15 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

From: <[email-masked]>
>
> Further, the BC website claims that "through the ICC World Chamber
Federation
> and the regional structure of MEDEF the BC outreaches to over 1.5 million
> companies worldwide."

Well, at least the GA includes all 127k members of INEGroup.  Although if you
plot INEGroup membership over time, it appears their growth curve has
flattened out somewhat over the last year.

And we might have the entire International Congress of Independent Internet
Users, since they withdrew their support from the NCDNHC, and they must be
larger than INEGroup, since they have their own website (www.iciiu.org).

Don't let those IPC and BC people fool you with their fictitious
organizations with fictitious members.

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:06:15 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Business Constituency

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C260C8.07A9F620
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Philip:

As a small business that has arbitrarily been denied membership in the
business constituency I respectfully disagree with your assessment that all
is alive and well.

Tell me Philip how many postings on the closed business constituency mailing
list?

How many SMEs wrongfully denied membership?

This posting is so disingenuous. I guess that is why someone else didn't
post it herself.

Mike

 -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Philip
Sheppard
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 3:39 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Don Evans; cathy Handley; Nancy J. Victory; Robin Layton
Subject: [ga] Business Constituency

  Just for the record.
  The Business Constituency is alive and well.
  Over 98% of members renewed their fees in 2002 and new members joined. See
the web site for the membership list. Following next week's BC conference
call, the BC will immediately publish its position on the ERC second
implementation report. Discussion on the BC e-mail lists this week has
covered the ERC, board election, transfers and deletes, and cc
registrations.  The BC list is moderated and free of invective. Our members
seem to like it that way.

  Philip Sheppard
  BC Constituency

- ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C260C8.07A9F620
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D360130021-20092002>Philip:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D360130021-20092002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D360130021-20092002>As a=20
small business that has arbitrarily been denied membership in the =
business=20
constituency I respectfully disagree with your assessment that all is =
alive and=20
well. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D360130021-20092002>Tell=20
me Philip how many postings on the closed business constituency mailing=20
list?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D360130021-20092002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D360130021-20092002>How=20
many SMEs wrongfully denied membership?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D360130021-20092002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D360130021-20092002>This=20
posting is so disingenuous. I guess that is why someone else didn't post =
it=20
herself.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D360130021-20092002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D360130021-20092002>Mike</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D360130021-20092002>&nbsp;</SPAN>-----Original =
Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20
[email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Philip=20
Sheppard<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, September 20, 2002 3:39 =
AM<BR><B>To:</B>=20
[email-masked]<BR><B>Cc:</B> Don Evans; cathy Handley; Nancy J. Victory; =
Robin=20
Layton<BR><B>Subject:</B> [ga] Business =
Constituency<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"></FONT>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Just for the record.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2>The Business Constituency is alive and =
well.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Over 98% of members renewed their fees in 2002 and =
new=20
  members joined. See the web site for the membership list. =
Following&nbsp;next=20
  week's BC conference call, the BC will immediately publish its =
position on the=20
  ERC second implementation report. </FONT><FONT size=3D2>Discussion on =
the BC=20
  e-mail lists this week has covered the ERC,&nbsp;board=20
  election,&nbsp;transfers and deletes, and&nbsp;cc registrations.&nbsp; =

  </FONT><FONT size=3D2>The BC list is moderated and free of invective. =
Our=20
  members seem to like it that way.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip Sheppard</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2>BC Constituency</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C260C8.07A9F620--

- --
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 #1429
*************************