Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1430
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST        Saturday, September 21 2002        Volume 01 : Number 1430

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

Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 14:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

Hello,

- --- "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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.

lol I've always envisioned the "127K members" to be some ant farm in a
basement somewhere, or something, given it's highly unlikely those are
127,000 living human beings.

On a more serious note, would folks support an individual domain name
holders constituency, where voting weight was determined by:

1) membership fee (say $25 or $50)
2) voting according to SQUARE ROOT of domain names held?
3) maximum 5% voting weight for any single member

So, a single member with, say, 100 domains would have 10 times the
voting weight of a single member with 1 domain. This would prevent it
from being controlled by large firms. Kind of like the compromise in
the US Congress, where small states each have 2 senators, regardless of
population, and then a number of seats proportional to population.

Verification of the number of domains per member could be done by
sending an email to [email-masked], since all domains are
supposed to have that address. For those with lots of domains, a script
that can verify identifcal WHOIS information for the admin contact
across all domains could be used, and then a single email sent to the
admin contact (perhaps in co-operation with registrars, who have such
scripts already when they perform transfers).

Lots of potential problems, though...e.g. which domains to include
(e.g. is a .com domain equal to a .de domain?)? How about .tv domains?
(e.g. someone at Verisign could create a billion fake domains, to get
lots of voting power). Maybe restrict it to the gTLD domains, until
such time as ICANN is charging a fixed fee per domain across all TLDs?
(e.g. once .ca holders get charged 25 cents in ICANN fees per year, or
whatever .com holders will be charged, .ca holders would be eligible to

have their domains count in the voting)

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 17:04:40 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

Phillip and all assembly members,

  Uh huh, well than the BC is still unaccountable to public review,
non transparent, and unaccountable.  Thank you for this update
Phillip.

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. 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
>
>
>

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 15:11:39 -0700
From: "Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C260B8.053E1980
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Philip, who are you kidding here!

The business constituency has no regard for many business entities and =
definitely not well nor alive. You have no sense in the first place of =
handling your internal (BC) business to represent the rest businesses to =
start with.

I personally passed an application; as witnessed by Marilyn; for my =
different companies to join the BC during ICANN Melbourne meeting to the =
constituency secretary by hand delivery to find out latter that it was =
lost and never processed. And since then the current secretary failed to =
get us going.

Many of us view the BC as a big FAILURE and a definite dead cause.

Regards,

Asaad Alnajjar
CEO Millennium Inc. ( Home of the Arabic Domain Name )
AINC Executive Director
http://www.any-dns.com
http://=D8=A7=D9=84=D8=A7=D8=B3=D9=85=D8=A7=D8=A1-=D8=A7=D9=84=D8=B9=D8=B1=
=D8=A8=D9=8A=D8=A9.=D8=B4=D8=B1=D9=83=D8=A9

  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Philip Sheppard=20
  To: [email-masked]=20
  Cc: Don Evans ; cathy Handley ; Nancy J. Victory ; Robin Layton=20
  Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 12:39 AM
  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_0015_01C260B8.053E1980
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="utf-8"
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=3Dutf-8">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080>Philip, who are you =
kidding=20
here!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080>The business =
constituency has no=20
regard for many business entities and definitely not well&nbsp;nor =
alive.=20
</FONT><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080>You have no sense =
in the first=20
place of handling your internal (BC) business to represent the rest =
businesses=20
to start with.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080>I personally passed =
an=20
application; as witnessed by Marilyn;&nbsp;for my different =
companies&nbsp;to=20
join the BC during ICANN&nbsp;Melbourne meeting to the constituency =
secretary by=20
hand delivery to find out latter that it was lost and never processed. =
And since=20
then the current secretary failed to get us going.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080>Many of us view the =
BC as a big=20
FAILURE and a definite dead cause.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
color=3D#800080>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080>Asaad =
Alnajjar</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080>CEO Millennium Inc. =
( Home of=20
the Arabic Domain Name )</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080>AINC Executive=20
Director</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080><A=20
href=3D"http://www.any-dns.com">http://www.any-dns.com</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080><A=20
href=3D"http://=D8=A7=D9=84=D8=A7=D8=B3=D9=85=D8=A7=D8=A1-=D8=A7=D9=84=D8=
=B9=D8=B1=D8=A8=D9=8A=D8=A9.=D8=B4=D8=B1=D9=83=D8=A9">http://=D8=A7=D9=84=
=D8=A7=D8=B3=D9=85=D8=A7=D8=A1-=D8=A7=D9=84=D8=B9=D8=B1=D8=A8=D9=8A=D8=A9=
.=D8=B4=D8=B1=D9=83=D8=A9</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D#800080></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #800080 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
  <DIV=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
  <A title=[email-masked] =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">Philip=20
  Sheppard</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">Don Evans</A> ; <A =
title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">cathy Handley</A> ; <A=20
  title=[email-masked] =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">Nancy J.=20
  Victory</A> ; <A title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">Robin Layton</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, September 20, =
2002 12:39=20
  AM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [ga] Business =
Constituency</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>
  <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_0015_01C260B8.053E1980--

- --
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 17:30:18 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Differences between MoUs 2000/2002

Alexander and all assembly members,

  Thank you for pointing up this important difference between the
two MoU's as far as the amendments 2 vs 5.

  One of the key differences of particular note is that the DOC/NTIA is
in effect legitimizing/endorsing the ERC and Blueprint reform effort.

  Of course the other areas that Alexander outlines are indeed important
in their difference amendment 2 vs amendment 5 (New MoU)

  However the new MoU with amendment 5 inclusive, still requires the
Stakeholder as a key and deciding element...

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 10:42:21 +1200
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Business Constituency

George Kirikos wrote: 

> Lots of potential problems, though...e.g. which domains to include
> (e.g. is a .com domain equal to a .de domain?)? How about .tv domains?
> (e.g. someone at Verisign could create a billion fake domains, to get
> lots of voting power). Maybe restrict it to the gTLD domains, until
> such time as ICANN is charging a fixed fee per domain across all TLDs?
> (e.g. once .ca holders get charged 25 cents in ICANN fees per year, or
> whatever .com holders will be charged, .ca holders would be eligible to

> have their domains count in the voting)

Why should name holders in a ccTLD pay a TAX to ICANN for ICANN to use it
for non ccTLD issues. The ccTLD's run their own policy and do it by whatever
system they wish. .au has a $11 AUD fee from registry to auDA. .nz has about
a $3 NZD policy 'cost'. 

If, and thats a big if, ICANN actually DID something to update the IANA
records and in fact stopped all the BS around ICP-1 THEN people might talk
about what policy areas _might_ be international and then determine how to
approach them.

A very quick read of the changes to the MOU appears to make ICANN even more
rabid over what it thinks its controls of the ccTLD's will be.

Steven Heath
.nz news & views
http://radio.weblogs.com/0110729/
- --
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 17:38:45 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

John and all assembly members,

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> 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.

  Yes, it has flattened out significantly...

>
>
> 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.

  The BC in it's nature is a organization of organizations sort of constituency.
I have not real problem with that.  I don't see any real reason why anyone
else would either.  The problem arises is that with such a structure, where
some of those organizations have members or employees that are also
members of other organizations that is not a BC member.  We [INEGroup]
have a number in that situation..

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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 00:47:58 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

- --=======74A37C0C=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-733D56; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

FYI I resigned from the BC wich means that at least 3% did not reniew.
I am happy yuo quote about the WISTA as a member, in two years of active 
membership I never realized they were a member. I known the Medef is there 
because I meet them sometimes, but never heard about them there. If 
Songbird is an individual part time business, the Darwin group is an 
important organization: ine of the 18 internet infrastructure investors 
(like the ASCAP, packets rusching  violon chords) and ICANN supporters:

<quote>
American Intellectual Property Law Association
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
Marlyn Cade : 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
Mike Roberts : The Darwin Group
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
US Internet Industry Association
Verizon Communications Inc.
Vint Cerf: WorldCom, Inc.
</quote>

May be you know who the 15 other ICANN supporters are.?

On 16:57 20/09/02, Jonathan Weinberg said:

>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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release Date: 09/09/02

- --=======74A37C0C=======--

- --
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 20:23:58 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

Dear Asaad,

I too submitted my membership application to the BC in Melbourne, and once 
more resubmitted it thereafter only to hear the same song and dance from 
their Secretariat that you have experienced.  I wonder how many other small 
businesses have now had their applications lost or denied by the BC?  Most 
every small business that was formerly a BC member is now gone.  

But we aren't the only ones they discriminate against... Their charter 
specifically excludes registries from being a member (which is why they 
rejected the application from new.net), yet they maintain on their membership 
roster the Socièté Internationale de Télécommunications Aéronautique (SITA) 
which operates the .aero registry.  They don't respect their own Charter, and 
they don't respect the bylaws -- they only seem to respect the telco industry 
(and re-wrote their own Charter in the middle of an election to make sure 
that two telco reps were elected to the Names Council).  

As you indicated, they have no sense of handling their internal business.  
The archives from the Marina del Rey session reveal the following:  "the 
Constituency has an inherited debt derived from the third party costs 
incurred by the previous secretariat. These costs relate chiefly to the part 
time employment of a co-ordinator and to use of third party web hosts. The 
debt resulted from an over-optimistic estimate of membership income. This is 
equivalent to 45 category 1 members or 440 category 3 members.  The 
Constituency has reached agreement with the previous secretariat to pay-off 
this debt in installments."  http://www.bizconst.org/archive/BCLA11-01.doc

Hopefully, ICANN will soon release the criteria necessary for the formation 
of provisional constituencies and we can start a new constituency that will 
be more responsive and involved.

Best wishes,
Danny Younger

Asaad wrote:

Philip, who are you kidding here!

The business constituency has no regard for many business entities and 
definitely not well nor alive. You have no sense in the first place of 
handling your internal (BC) business to represent the rest businesses to 
start with.

I personally passed an application; as witnessed by Marilyn; for my different 
companies to join the BC during ICANN Melbourne meeting to the constituency 
secretary by hand delivery to find out latter that it was lost and never 
processed. And since then the current secretary failed to get us going.

Many of us view the BC as a big FAILURE and a definite dead cause.

Regards,

Asaad Alnajjar
CEO Millennium Inc. ( Home of the Arabic Domain Name )
AINC Executive Director
http://www.any-dns.com
http://_______-_______.____
- --
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 23:04:31 -0400
From: Allan Liska <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Cyberspace Security and the Root(s)

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: MD5

Hello Jeff,

Friday, September 20, 2002, 1:06:25 AM, you wrote:

JW>   I am afraid I do not understand you label of me and you compulsion
JW> of name calling as relevant to making a good argument that could or should
JW> be considered valid in the slightest way..

I am afraid I don't understand your inability create a coherent
sentence.  I am not name calling, you are a troll, that is a statement
of fact.  There are numerous FAQs demonstrating your troll-like
nature, I was trying to avoid embarrassing you by pointing them out.
>>
>>
>> The situation you describe would mean one of two things:
>>
>> 1. The multiple roots would have to pull their information from the
>> primary root.

JW>   Not correct necessarily.  However your scenario is one of several
JW> that MIGHT be the situation depending on a number of factors.
JW> The pull could be in both directions.  The shared databases could
JW> also link similar but not exact zone files. These are just two of the
JW> number of factors.

Neither of the two scenarios scenarios you describe make sense from a
technical or security standpoint.  If the pull is in both directions,
who is going to maintain authoritative information?  One central
authority still has to be responsible for information integrity.
Similarly, how would you divide zone files between multiple roots?
One root gets a-m and another gets n-z?  What advantage does that
provide?  Are you going to let different roots maintain different
zones with the same information?  That will lead to a less secure DNS
infrastructure because it will lessen the availability of DNS
information.

>>
>>
>> 2. Alternatively, each root would maintain a primary database of their
>> own, which leads to the possibility that one set of root servers would
>> have different information than the other set of root servers.  Which
>> lowers the integrity of the information, and is, by definition,
>> insecure.

JW>   Just because two different databases supposedly containing the same
JW> information or should be, does not necessarily mean that the security
JW> is lessened.  If you really believe such a blanket statement as that
JW> which you made, please explain in detail how or why that is so.
JW> In fact it depends on what the information is, how it is organized to
JW> a degree, and how aged both sets of data are.

The "should be" in your response answers my question for me.  I don't
want my DNS managed by "should be's" I want it managed by operational
fact.  The fact is that the current root infrastructure is secure,
robust, highly available and meticulously maintained.  By allowing
different roots to maintain independent information about various TLDs
there is a very good chance that different roots will have different
information about domains.  If I change the DNS servers for my domain
it is possible some of the roots will pick up the information but not
others, or some will pick it up later than others.  With a single root
system, all the root servers have the same information -- very few
errors occur at the root level.  By opening the root system in the
above manner so different roots have authoritative databases, you have
increased the chance that a DNS error will occur at the root level
without providing any benefit in terms of security of availability.

>>
>>
>> Also, consider that these alternate roots could possibly be maintained
>> by people like yourself who obviously have no concept of the meaning
>> of information security, therefore could be a massive security threat.

JW>   ROFLMAO.  Well I see that again you revert back to a name calling
JW> argument to support your position.  Bad idea.  Competitive root structures
JW> data presently in their zones is more current than the USG/Legacy's is
JW> or has been for sometime now.  That is a FACT.

Saying that you are not well-versed in security matters is not an
insult, again it is a statement of fact.  It is not possible that the
information in the competitive zones is more current than the
information in the root zone, because they have to pull their
information from the root servers...so, by definition, it has to be
older than the information on the root servers.

On the other hand, if you are referring to the information about
non-ICANN approved TLDs.  Who cares?  I can maintain a database of a
few hundred thousand or even a million domains that have almost no
queries very easily.  When one of these alternative roots has the same
amount of traffic as the F root server -- then come talk to me.

JW>   I have several Domain names...  Checkout Whois yourself..

Name one, and I will.

allan
- - --
Allan Liska
[email-masked]
http://www.allan.org

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQCVAwUAPYvhwn+n87oa5a9VAQE4UQQAgO5sx3CoQHid+BEv4t6PM6FePPptgCiQ
m9ayP+MO8vxkJSLYbBTk7rBP6fWE/jEnkTloSyss1vaKXyxK3aplyx2hJ7YSt4Jg
QVA/j4lxrS6fJw5o5Q31PkwGIgReU2QLmkKqfDpnZHVyk5vcP/Cn09q9MWfdrWei
xoYpLAq6kMM=
=t6vk
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 00:01:57 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: in response to a question about a letter  regarding ICANN reform

Marilyn,
I take that as a yes to my question about your authorship of the letter.
Apologies for the earlier bad link. Please answer Danny's questions about
how each organization was authorized by its members to arrive at the
decision to support the contents of the letter.

Thanks,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 3:27 PM
> To: Joanna Lane; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: 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: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 08:35:06 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: in response to a question about a letter  regarding ICANN reform

Joanna, Marilyn and all assembly members, stakeholders or other interested
parties,

  Yes Marilyn, it would seem that Danny's questions do demand a
direct answer so as to verify the varsity of your letter as you
were speaking in the names of stakeholders in said letter.

Thank you Marilyn for your cooperation in advance...

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Marilyn,
> I take that as a yes to my question about your authorship of the letter.
> Apologies for the earlier bad link. Please answer Danny's questions about
> how each organization was authorized by its members to arrive at the
> decision to support the contents of the letter.
>
> Thanks,
> Joanna
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 3:27 PM
> > To: Joanna Lane; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: 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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1430
*************************