Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1447
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Monday, September 30 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1447

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

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:45:37 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN Board member, complete election results.

[To:[email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

Please find the complete election results for the ICANN Board member
election in the url below:
http://www.dnso.org/elections/2002.DNSO-ICANN-election-result.html

DNSO Secretariat

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

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

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:11:00 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Chuck,

You are absolutely correct to say that Registries benefit
from the input of others, business, lawyers, academic sector,
telcos, ISP and others.
We have been doing it at AFNIC for years, in French.

The ccTLD registries are serving over 190 sovereign countries,
and 50 territories, the whole planet, their primary duty is 
to serve their local internet communities, to be with their users
every day, operate in their legal systems, and speak their languages.

I do not understand what you mean by "they might want to avoid 
[constituencies]" - do you think the same constituency structure should
be imposed on every ccTLD ? From practical point of view do you 
suggest each ccTLD should work in English ?

I believe we are in the heart of rich difference between ccTLD and gTLD.
The ccTLD space is local. The gTLD space is extra-judiciary, it is
not connected to any country. Therefore the ICANN structure which
is being providing a global place, for global Internet community.
Take an example, the Neustar has a good perception of difference
- - their focus is US, when they operate .us (with all conditions
on name servers which must be in the US etc). But when they operate 
.biz (as VeriSign which operates .com/.net) they think international.
On the www.nic.biz site the customers have a choice of languages, 
Chinese, French, German, Korean, Japanese, Spanish, the UDRP service
and a neutral green background, while on the www.nic.us there is 
an US flag up front.

Amicalement,
Elisabeth Porteneuve
- --

> It's never been clear why the ccTLD registries couldn't "benefit" from the
> input of other consituencies.  ccTLD TLDs involve business, IP,
> noncommerical, and ISP users, so, if the constituency model is to be
> continued, why wouldn't the ccSO have similar constituencies?  I can
> understand why they might want to avoid that, but it is not because those
> constituences are not impacted by ccTLD issues.
> 
> Chuck  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 8:50 PM
> > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> > 
> > 
> > Peter,
> > 
> > I appreciate your sensitivity to user concerns and note that 
> > you have asked, 
> > "Why shouldn't the structure require the registries and 
> > registrars to sit 
> > around the table with their user community?"
> > 
> > In light of this question, can you identify the functional 
> > mechanism by which 
> > relevant user community input will be respected within the 
> > proposed ccSO?  
> > Perhaps that which is proposed within your own SO can offer 
> > some structural 
> > guidance to the GNSO...
> > 
> > best regards,
> > Danny
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 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
> 
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:25:33 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Elisabeth,

I am sure you know I am not advocating that ccTLDs should use English to
communicate with their constituencies.

Moreover, to the extent that a ccTLD is restricted to a narrow geographical
region (e.g., country), I am not suggesting that such a ccTLD would benefit
from the same constituency structure as in the current DNSO.  But as you
well know, a lot of ccTLD registries are not restricted to their own
geographical region; they function essentially like gTLD registries on a
global basis.  In those cases, I see little difference between ccTLDs and
gTLDs because users expand beyond local boarders and associated policy
issues are the pretty much the same.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:11 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> You are absolutely correct to say that Registries benefit
> from the input of others, business, lawyers, academic sector,
> telcos, ISP and others.
> We have been doing it at AFNIC for years, in French.
> 
> The ccTLD registries are serving over 190 sovereign countries,
> and 50 territories, the whole planet, their primary duty is 
> to serve their local internet communities, to be with their users
> every day, operate in their legal systems, and speak their languages.
> 
> I do not understand what you mean by "they might want to avoid 
> [constituencies]" - do you think the same constituency 
> structure should
> be imposed on every ccTLD ? From practical point of view do you 
> suggest each ccTLD should work in English ?
> 
> I believe we are in the heart of rich difference between 
> ccTLD and gTLD.
> The ccTLD space is local. The gTLD space is extra-judiciary, it is
> not connected to any country. Therefore the ICANN structure which
> is being providing a global place, for global Internet community.
> Take an example, the Neustar has a good perception of difference
> - their focus is US, when they operate .us (with all conditions
> on name servers which must be in the US etc). But when they operate 
> .biz (as VeriSign which operates .com/.net) they think international.
> On the www.nic.biz site the customers have a choice of languages, 
> Chinese, French, German, Korean, Japanese, Spanish, the UDRP service
> and a neutral green background, while on the www.nic.us there is 
> an US flag up front.
> 
> Amicalement,
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> --
> 
> > It's never been clear why the ccTLD registries couldn't 
> "benefit" from the
> > input of other consituencies.  ccTLD TLDs involve business, IP,
> > noncommerical, and ISP users, so, if the constituency model is to be
> > continued, why wouldn't the ccSO have similar constituencies?  I can
> > understand why they might want to avoid that, but it is not 
> because those
> > constituences are not impacted by ccTLD issues.
> > 
> > Chuck  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 8:50 PM
> > > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Peter,
> > > 
> > > I appreciate your sensitivity to user concerns and note that 
> > > you have asked, 
> > > "Why shouldn't the structure require the registries and 
> > > registrars to sit 
> > > around the table with their user community?"
> > > 
> > > In light of this question, can you identify the functional 
> > > mechanism by which 
> > > relevant user community input will be respected within the 
> > > proposed ccSO?  
> > > Perhaps that which is proposed within your own SO can offer 
> > > some structural 
> > > guidance to the GNSO...
> > > 
> > > best regards,
> > > Danny
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 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
> > 
> > 
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 19:03:51 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Chuck, you say "a lot of ccTLD registries" - could you be more explicit
please ? Which ccTLD you see as functionning like gTLD registries ?
What does it mean "like gTLD registries" ? 
Information in many languages ? Advertisements (paper press, TV)
in many countries ? Using ICANN Registrars as resellers ?

Elisabeth
- --

> 
> Elisabeth,
> 
> I am sure you know I am not advocating that ccTLDs should use English to
> communicate with their constituencies.
> 
> Moreover, to the extent that a ccTLD is restricted to a narrow geographical
> region (e.g., country), I am not suggesting that such a ccTLD would benefit
> from the same constituency structure as in the current DNSO.  But as you
> well know, a lot of ccTLD registries are not restricted to their own
> geographical region; they function essentially like gTLD registries on a
> global basis.  In those cases, I see little difference between ccTLDs and
> gTLDs because users expand beyond local boarders and associated policy
> issues are the pretty much the same.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:11 PM
> > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
> > [email-masked];
> > [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Chuck,
> > 
> > You are absolutely correct to say that Registries benefit
> > from the input of others, business, lawyers, academic sector,
> > telcos, ISP and others.
> > We have been doing it at AFNIC for years, in French.
> > 
> > The ccTLD registries are serving over 190 sovereign countries,
> > and 50 territories, the whole planet, their primary duty is 
> > to serve their local internet communities, to be with their users
> > every day, operate in their legal systems, and speak their languages.
> > 
> > I do not understand what you mean by "they might want to avoid 
> > [constituencies]" - do you think the same constituency 
> > structure should
> > be imposed on every ccTLD ? From practical point of view do you 
> > suggest each ccTLD should work in English ?
> > 
> > I believe we are in the heart of rich difference between 
> > ccTLD and gTLD.
> > The ccTLD space is local. The gTLD space is extra-judiciary, it is
> > not connected to any country. Therefore the ICANN structure which
> > is being providing a global place, for global Internet community.
> > Take an example, the Neustar has a good perception of difference
> > - their focus is US, when they operate .us (with all conditions
> > on name servers which must be in the US etc). But when they operate 
> > .biz (as VeriSign which operates .com/.net) they think international.
> > On the www.nic.biz site the customers have a choice of languages, 
> > Chinese, French, German, Korean, Japanese, Spanish, the UDRP service
> > and a neutral green background, while on the www.nic.us there is 
> > an US flag up front.
> > 
> > Amicalement,
> > Elisabeth Porteneuve
> > --
> > 
> > > It's never been clear why the ccTLD registries couldn't 
> > "benefit" from the
> > > input of other consituencies.  ccTLD TLDs involve business, IP,
> > > noncommerical, and ISP users, so, if the constituency model is to be
> > > continued, why wouldn't the ccSO have similar constituencies?  I can
> > > understand why they might want to avoid that, but it is not 
> > because those
> > > constituences are not impacted by ccTLD issues.
> > > 
> > > Chuck  
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 8:50 PM
> > > > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > > > Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Peter,
> > > > 
> > > > I appreciate your sensitivity to user concerns and note that 
> > > > you have asked, 
> > > > "Why shouldn't the structure require the registries and 
> > > > registrars to sit 
> > > > around the table with their user community?"
> > > > 
> > > > In light of this question, can you identify the functional 
> > > > mechanism by which 
> > > > relevant user community input will be respected within the 
> > > > proposed ccSO?  
> > > > Perhaps that which is proposed within your own SO can offer 
> > > > some structural 
> > > > guidance to the GNSO...
> > > > 
> > > > best regards,
> > > > Danny
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:07:56 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] regulating content

Dear Jeff,

I note that you have extended the comment period on your first discussion 
draft of content guidelines and requirements for the kids.us namespace posted 
at http://www.neustar.us/kids/kidsus_content_policy.pdf

A few questions:

1.  Are the public comments on this draft posted anywhere?
2.  What input have you received from the .us Policy Council on this topic 
and where might that input be found?
3.  When did the .us Policy Council last meet?
4.  When is their next meeting scheduled?

Best regards,
Danny

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

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

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:29:37 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Appendix G

Dear Jeff,

Please clarify a matter for me.  Your current .biz registry agreement 
specifies that "NeuLevel shall not be entitled to charge for any Registry 
Service not specified in this Appendix G" -- yet I have noted the recent 
launch (26 September) of BIZ Promote (http://www.bizpromote.biz), a search 
engine submission service that directly competes with similar services 
offered by the registrar community which does not appear to be a service 
listed or specified anywhere in Appendix G.   How then are you entitled to 
charge for such service?
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:36:47 -0400
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Thanks Elizabeth, we do recognize the difference at Neustar.  However, we
also recognize that there are certain issues that should be considered
"global policy issues" and for these it is more appropriate to have a global
body, like the ICANN, to provide that forum than to rely on just the local
community.  A few examples of these types of issues include (1) Grace
Periods, (2) Transfers, (3) Escrow, (4) Dispute Resolution Policies, and (5)
Uniform Deletion Periods, etc. 

As our contract with the Department of Commerce sets forth, we are required
to look towards ICANN for global policy issues.  It is in the ICANN arena
that we often choose to participate from both a ccTLD and gTLD perspective
because in our opinion some of these issues affect all global users equally.
In this respect, for these issues, gTLDs and ccTLDs are affected in exactly
the same way and therefore, should be treated the same way.  I understand
that there are may ccTLDs that do not believe that there are any global
policy issues.  We do not believe that to be the case.  If

Yes, for most of the other issues, we will look towards our own local
community for input and you are correct, it is that local aspect that makes
.us different than a gTLD like .biz.  

- -----Original Message-----
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:11 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Chuck,

You are absolutely correct to say that Registries benefit
from the input of others, business, lawyers, academic sector,
telcos, ISP and others.
We have been doing it at AFNIC for years, in French.

The ccTLD registries are serving over 190 sovereign countries,
and 50 territories, the whole planet, their primary duty is 
to serve their local internet communities, to be with their users
every day, operate in their legal systems, and speak their languages.

I do not understand what you mean by "they might want to avoid 
[constituencies]" - do you think the same constituency structure should
be imposed on every ccTLD ? From practical point of view do you 
suggest each ccTLD should work in English ?

I believe we are in the heart of rich difference between ccTLD and gTLD.
The ccTLD space is local. The gTLD space is extra-judiciary, it is
not connected to any country. Therefore the ICANN structure which
is being providing a global place, for global Internet community.
Take an example, the Neustar has a good perception of difference
- - their focus is US, when they operate .us (with all conditions
on name servers which must be in the US etc). But when they operate 
.biz (as VeriSign which operates .com/.net) they think international.
On the www.nic.biz site the customers have a choice of languages, 
Chinese, French, German, Korean, Japanese, Spanish, the UDRP service
and a neutral green background, while on the www.nic.us there is 
an US flag up front.

Amicalement,
Elisabeth Porteneuve
- --

> It's never been clear why the ccTLD registries couldn't "benefit" from the
> input of other consituencies.  ccTLD TLDs involve business, IP,
> noncommerical, and ISP users, so, if the constituency model is to be
> continued, why wouldn't the ccSO have similar constituencies?  I can
> understand why they might want to avoid that, but it is not because those
> constituences are not impacted by ccTLD issues.
> 
> Chuck  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 8:50 PM
> > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> > 
> > 
> > Peter,
> > 
> > I appreciate your sensitivity to user concerns and note that 
> > you have asked, 
> > "Why shouldn't the structure require the registries and 
> > registrars to sit 
> > around the table with their user community?"
> > 
> > In light of this question, can you identify the functional 
> > mechanism by which 
> > relevant user community input will be respected within the 
> > proposed ccSO?  
> > Perhaps that which is proposed within your own SO can offer 
> > some structural 
> > guidance to the GNSO...
> > 
> > best regards,
> > Danny
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 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
> 
> 
- --
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, 1 Oct 2002 02:46:47 +0900
From: "YJ Park" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [announce] ICANN Board member: complete election results

My thanks to Danny Younger and others who supported me as 2002 
DNSO Board candidate in the GA. My congratulations to Alejandro 
who was elected in 1999 and recently reelected in 2002 under ICANN
reform process as ERC chair.  

I also want to appreciate Vivek Durai, the other candidate, who agreed to 
accept ICANNatlarge.com's panel consensus to accept the candidacy
to urge "substantial user participation and representation" in the governance 
model.
 
It was unfortunate that NC be occupied with ERC discussion and finished
the most 'efficient' election process which has been driving ICANN reform 
without proper consultation and procedures.  

Regards,
YJ 

> Please find the complete election results for the ICANN Board member
> election in the url below:
> http://www.dnso.org/elections/2002.DNSO-ICANN-election-result.html

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

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

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:44:11 -0400
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Appendix G

BizPromote is NOT a Registry service.  It is a service that is operated and
administered completely outside of the Registry System. It is a search
engine tool that is TLD agnostic.  It doesn't matter if you want to promote
a .biz, .com, .us, .cc, .info, .bz or a .museum site.  It is not a monopoly
service and anyone else can offer the same service (be it a Registrar,
search engine, etc). It is simply a new service offering from our company.
It does not rely on the registration of a domain name (except to the extent
that presumably to have a website you need to have a domain name).  NeuStar
offering this service is no different that NeuStar selling toasters.

Surely, you are not implying that every service NeuStar comes out with is a
"Registry Service."    

Danny, I would encourage you to read the entire ICANN agreements.  I would
be happy to answer any other questions. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 1:30 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Appendix G

Dear Jeff,

Please clarify a matter for me.  Your current .biz registry agreement 
specifies that "NeuLevel shall not be entitled to charge for any Registry 
Service not specified in this Appendix G" -- yet I have noted the recent 
launch (26 September) of BIZ Promote (http://www.bizpromote.biz), a search 
engine submission service that directly competes with similar services 
offered by the registrar community which does not appear to be a service 
listed or specified anywhere in Appendix G.   How then are you entitled to 
charge for such service?
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:58:44 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

One thing this dialogue underscores is the wisdom behind the original idea
of "consensus." "Consensus," at least as I've always understood it, looks
for agreement among impacted/self-interested parties and so, implicitly,
weighs the views of those impacted by an issue more heavily than those who
are not. The current debate -- between two fixed ideas of how to divide
votes -- rests on the false assumption that a single correct division exists
for every issue that comes before the GNSO.

A better process would weigh registry and registrar interests more heavily
on an issue in which registry/registrar interests predominate (e.g. policy
solutions for "add storms") and user interests more heavily when their
interests predominate (e.g. UDRP). Equal weighting would be appropriate some
of the time too. That kind of flexible process, however, requires the
various constituencies to show a degree of self-awareness about when and how
they are impacted that we haven't yet seen.

The ERC tries to solve the problem by giving two sets of interests equal
votes and allowing NomComm-appointed Council members to tip the balance.
Presumably, one of the things that will guide the NomComm members' votes is
an independent sense of which camp is more affected by the outcomes. Is
there a better solution than appointing three baby-sitters to the Names
Council? I would hope so. I hear both camps essentially arguing for the same
thing: a desire for a voice proportionate to the size and nature of the
problem under discussion. Surely there's a way of solving that problem on
which all constituencies could agree.

           -- Bret

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

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

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 19:57:15 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Jeff,

What let you think that any of the listed can apply to many
if not all ccTLD ? All are related to the local customs.

 - (1) Grace Periods are not relevant in countries
   where you can have automated bank payment for service,
   or where you cannot sell a domain name
 - I do not see why (5) Uniform Deletion Periods should be uniform.
 - (3) Escrow is a national matter, and an absolute no issue
   for global policy (besides that it is better to have a backup
   when you run a registry)
 - (4) Dispute Resolution Policies depends on the naming charter, 
   and are totaly different from country to country
   the same for (2) Transfers

> Yes, for most of the other issues, we will look towards our own local
> community for input and you are correct, it is that local aspect that makes
> .us different than a gTLD like .biz.  

Absolutely. The local aspect makes the difference.
Add language and legislation, you will see how strong it is.

Best regards,
Elisabeth
- --

> From [email-masked] Mon Sep 30 19:35 MET 2002
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Elisabeth Porteneuve'" <[email-masked]>,
>         [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
>         [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:36:47 -0400
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> 
> Thanks Elizabeth, we do recognize the difference at Neustar.  However, we
> also recognize that there are certain issues that should be considered
> "global policy issues" and for these it is more appropriate to have a global
> body, like the ICANN, to provide that forum than to rely on just the local
> community.  A few examples of these types of issues include (1) Grace
> Periods, (2) Transfers, (3) Escrow, (4) Dispute Resolution Policies, and (5)
> Uniform Deletion Periods, etc. 
> 
> As our contract with the Department of Commerce sets forth, we are required
> to look towards ICANN for global policy issues.  It is in the ICANN arena
> that we often choose to participate from both a ccTLD and gTLD perspective
> because in our opinion some of these issues affect all global users equally.
> In this respect, for these issues, gTLDs and ccTLDs are affected in exactly
> the same way and therefore, should be treated the same way.  I understand
> that there are may ccTLDs that do not believe that there are any global
> policy issues.  We do not believe that to be the case.  If
> 
> Yes, for most of the other issues, we will look towards our own local
> community for input and you are correct, it is that local aspect that makes
> .us different than a gTLD like .biz.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:11 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> You are absolutely correct to say that Registries benefit
> from the input of others, business, lawyers, academic sector,
> telcos, ISP and others.
> We have been doing it at AFNIC for years, in French.
> 
> The ccTLD registries are serving over 190 sovereign countries,
> and 50 territories, the whole planet, their primary duty is 
> to serve their local internet communities, to be with their users
> every day, operate in their legal systems, and speak their languages.
> 
> I do not understand what you mean by "they might want to avoid 
> [constituencies]" - do you think the same constituency structure should
> be imposed on every ccTLD ? From practical point of view do you 
> suggest each ccTLD should work in English ?
> 
> I believe we are in the heart of rich difference between ccTLD and gTLD.
> The ccTLD space is local. The gTLD space is extra-judiciary, it is
> not connected to any country. Therefore the ICANN structure which
> is being providing a global place, for global Internet community.
> Take an example, the Neustar has a good perception of difference
> - their focus is US, when they operate .us (with all conditions
> on name servers which must be in the US etc). But when they operate 
> .biz (as VeriSign which operates .com/.net) they think international.
> On the www.nic.biz site the customers have a choice of languages, 
> Chinese, French, German, Korean, Japanese, Spanish, the UDRP service
> and a neutral green background, while on the www.nic.us there is 
> an US flag up front.
> 
> Amicalement,
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> --
> 
> > It's never been clear why the ccTLD registries couldn't "benefit" from the
> > input of other consituencies.  ccTLD TLDs involve business, IP,
> > noncommerical, and ISP users, so, if the constituency model is to be
> > continued, why wouldn't the ccSO have similar constituencies?  I can
> > understand why they might want to avoid that, but it is not because those
> > constituences are not impacted by ccTLD issues.
> > 
> > Chuck  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 8:50 PM
> > > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Peter,
> > > 
> > > I appreciate your sensitivity to user concerns and note that 
> > > you have asked, 
> > > "Why shouldn't the structure require the registries and 
> > > registrars to sit 
> > > around the table with their user community?"
> > > 
> > > In light of this question, can you identify the functional 
> > > mechanism by which 
> > > relevant user community input will be respected within the 
> > > proposed ccSO?  
> > > Perhaps that which is proposed within your own SO can offer 
> > > some structural 
> > > guidance to the GNSO...
> > > 
> > > best regards,
> > > Danny
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 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
> > 
> > 
> --
> 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
> 
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:03:41 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Appendix G

Danny:

The answer is contained in Section 1.16 of the registry agreement (see
below). Approval is only needed for "registry" services. This is not a
registry service therefore no ICANN approval needed.

Mike

1.16. "Registry Services" means services provided as an integral part of the
operation of the Registry TLD, including all subdomains in which Registered
Names are registered. In determining whether a service is integral to the
operation of the Registry TLD, consideration will be given to the extent to
which the Registry Operator has been materially advantaged in providing the
service by its designation as such under this Agreement. The development of
technology, expertise, systems, efficient operations, reputation (including
identification as Registry Operator), financial strength, or relationships
with registrars and third parties shall not be deemed an advantage arising
from the designation. Registry Services include: receipt of data concerning
registration of domain names and nameservers from registrars, provision to
registrars of status information relating to the Registry TLD, dissemination
of TLD zone files, operation of the Registry TLD zone servers, dissemination
of contact and other information concerning domain-name and nameserver
registrations in the Registry TLD, and such other services required by ICANN
in the manner provided in Subsections 4.3 through 4.6. Registry Services
shall not include the provision of nameservice for a domain used by a single
entity under a Registered Name registered through an ICANN-Accredited
Registrar.

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 1:30 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Appendix G

Dear Jeff,

Please clarify a matter for me.  Your current .biz registry agreement
specifies that "NeuLevel shall not be entitled to charge for any Registry
Service not specified in this Appendix G" -- yet I have noted the recent
launch (26 September) of BIZ Promote (http://www.bizpromote.biz), a search
engine submission service that directly competes with similar services
offered by the registrar community which does not appear to be a service
listed or specified anywhere in Appendix G.   How then are you entitled to
charge for such service?
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:18:08 -0400
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Thanks Elizabeth, without getting in to the weeds to much, it is true that
each ccTLD at this point in time has different policies with respect to
transfers, deletions, grace periods, etc.  That being said, however, the
fact that each ccTLD has their own policies does not mean that there could
not be an effort to standardize some of these to come up with  best
practices on a global level.

Again, some will argue that there is no such thing as a global policy issue.
I disagree.  We will have to just agree to disagree here.  I believe that a
global forum (be it ICANN or another entity) to discuss these types of
policy matters with global users would be a useful tool to standardize
certain practices within the ccTLD community.  That was my main point.  We
can argue all day about the details.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 1:57 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Jeff,

What let you think that any of the listed can apply to many
if not all ccTLD ? All are related to the local customs.

 - (1) Grace Periods are not relevant in countries
   where you can have automated bank payment for service,
   or where you cannot sell a domain name
 - I do not see why (5) Uniform Deletion Periods should be uniform.
 - (3) Escrow is a national matter, and an absolute no issue
   for global policy (besides that it is better to have a backup
   when you run a registry)
 - (4) Dispute Resolution Policies depends on the naming charter, 
   and are totaly different from country to country
   the same for (2) Transfers

> Yes, for most of the other issues, we will look towards our own local
> community for input and you are correct, it is that local aspect that
makes
> .us different than a gTLD like .biz.  

Absolutely. The local aspect makes the difference.
Add language and legislation, you will see how strong it is.

Best regards,
Elisabeth
- --

> From [email-masked] Mon Sep 30 19:35 MET 2002
> Message-ID:
<[email-masked]>
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Elisabeth Porteneuve'" <[email-masked]>,
>         [email-masked], [email-masked],
[email-masked],
>         [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:36:47 -0400
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> 
> Thanks Elizabeth, we do recognize the difference at Neustar.  However, we
> also recognize that there are certain issues that should be considered
> "global policy issues" and for these it is more appropriate to have a
global
> body, like the ICANN, to provide that forum than to rely on just the local
> community.  A few examples of these types of issues include (1) Grace
> Periods, (2) Transfers, (3) Escrow, (4) Dispute Resolution Policies, and
(5)
> Uniform Deletion Periods, etc. 
> 
> As our contract with the Department of Commerce sets forth, we are
required
> to look towards ICANN for global policy issues.  It is in the ICANN arena
> that we often choose to participate from both a ccTLD and gTLD perspective
> because in our opinion some of these issues affect all global users
equally.
> In this respect, for these issues, gTLDs and ccTLDs are affected in
exactly
> the same way and therefore, should be treated the same way.  I understand
> that there are may ccTLDs that do not believe that there are any global
> policy issues.  We do not believe that to be the case.  If
> 
> Yes, for most of the other issues, we will look towards our own local
> community for input and you are correct, it is that local aspect that
makes
> .us different than a gTLD like .biz.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:11 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> You are absolutely correct to say that Registries benefit
> from the input of others, business, lawyers, academic sector,
> telcos, ISP and others.
> We have been doing it at AFNIC for years, in French.
> 
> The ccTLD registries are serving over 190 sovereign countries,
> and 50 territories, the whole planet, their primary duty is 
> to serve their local internet communities, to be with their users
> every day, operate in their legal systems, and speak their languages.
> 
> I do not understand what you mean by "they might want to avoid 
> [constituencies]" - do you think the same constituency structure should
> be imposed on every ccTLD ? From practical point of view do you 
> suggest each ccTLD should work in English ?
> 
> I believe we are in the heart of rich difference between ccTLD and gTLD.
> The ccTLD space is local. The gTLD space is extra-judiciary, it is
> not connected to any country. Therefore the ICANN structure which
> is being providing a global place, for global Internet community.
> Take an example, the Neustar has a good perception of difference
> - their focus is US, when they operate .us (with all conditions
> on name servers which must be in the US etc). But when they operate 
> .biz (as VeriSign which operates .com/.net) they think international.
> On the www.nic.biz site the customers have a choice of languages, 
> Chinese, French, German, Korean, Japanese, Spanish, the UDRP service
> and a neutral green background, while on the www.nic.us there is 
> an US flag up front.
> 
> Amicalement,
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> --
> 
> > It's never been clear why the ccTLD registries couldn't "benefit" from
the
> > input of other consituencies.  ccTLD TLDs involve business, IP,
> > noncommerical, and ISP users, so, if the constituency model is to be
> > continued, why wouldn't the ccSO have similar constituencies?  I can
> > understand why they might want to avoid that, but it is not because
those
> > constituences are not impacted by ccTLD issues.
> > 
> > Chuck  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 8:50 PM
> > > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Peter,
> > > 
> > > I appreciate your sensitivity to user concerns and note that 
> > > you have asked, 
> > > "Why shouldn't the structure require the registries and 
> > > registrars to sit 
> > > around the table with their user community?"
> > > 
> > > In light of this question, can you identify the functional 
> > > mechanism by which 
> > > relevant user community input will be respected within the 
> > > proposed ccSO?  
> > > Perhaps that which is proposed within your own SO can offer 
> > > some structural 
> > > guidance to the GNSO...
> > > 
> > > best regards,
> > > Danny
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 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
> > 
> > 
> --
> 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
> 
> 
- --
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 #1447
*************************