Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1449
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, October 1 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1449

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

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 19:07:20 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Geroge and all assembly members,

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >   We?  Who is "We"?  Do  you have a mouse in your pocket?  >;)
>
> haha Coming from someone who regularly uses 'we' for his fictitious
> "INEGroup", that has to be the funniest line of the day.

  You and I know whom the "We" is when I refer to our members
George.  In Mr. Nuemans case of the use of the term "We" in this
context, there is no idea as to whom that "We" is...

>
>
> Where are the 127K members of INEGroup? Do bed bugs count? :)

  Our [INEGroup] members are in over 100 countries, and most US states.
Bed bugs are not allowed!  >;)

>
>
> 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

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 12:21:28 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:25:33 -0400, "Gomes, Chuck"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>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.

This has been a long standing issue.  However no one has ever stated
who would decide and how they would decide which ccTLDs function as
gTLDs and which do not?  Any system other than self selection would
threaten sovereignty.

So perhaps all you need is a system where some ccTLDs could apply to
join the gNSO and be bound by it?
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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, 01 Oct 2002 12:21:49 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 08:38:56 -0400, "Gomes, Chuck"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Peter,
> 
>Why shouldn't the structure require the ccTLD registries to sit around the
>table with the user community?  Why shouldn't the ccSO have constituencies
>representing the user community?
> 
>It seems to be that both gTLD and ccTLD registries and registrars can
>benefit with interaction with the user community.  But we shouldn't assume
>that the only way to do that is within the ICANN structure.

Indeed not.  In many ccTLDs the users actually control the registry
and approve the policies.  In .nz for example we now have a .nz
oversight committee which approves policies and registrars (plus the
registry) are barred from serving on the committee.  You can't get
much more user friendly than that.  Incidentally the registrars
haven't really objected to lack of representation because having good
staff and processes means that their legitimate concerns and issues
are listened to and actioned.

While I have no problems with the ccTLDs globally consulting with user
organisations such as icannatlarge.org over relevant issues, one has
to understand that almost all policies bar inter-operability must be
local not global policies.  ccTLDs internationally can come up with
best practices etc but these are not binding.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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, 01 Oct 2002 12:26:45 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:36:47 -0400, "Neuman, Jeff"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>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. 

I have to strongly disagree that these issues would be suitable for
global policies binding on all ccTLDs.

.nz has spent a massive amount of time consulting with local users on
exactly these issues and the suggestion that the will of the local
internet community should be subservient to an ICANN process is not
one which would find favour.  DIfferent countries have different laws
relating to privacy, consumer protection, trademarks so the whole
notion of global policies over all 245 ccTLDs is never going to
happen.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 11:32:47 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:30 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

> It's never been clear why the ccTLD registries couldn't "benefit" from the
> input of other consituencies.

Agreed - but not the issue. When we want the benefit we can obtain from the
DNSO constituencies, we shall use the DNSO liaison group we saet up last
year.

The issue is about membership of the ccSO, not whom it will liaise with.

> 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.
>
Agreed, and we deal with all of those at home, in so far as they raise
issues which affect the sovereign space. What we don't want need, or believe
is appropriate for ICAN is to come to an international coordination forum to
deal with issues which belong at home.

And no, the constituency model has no application in the ccSO, just as it
didn't in the PSO, and won't in the ASO. You have to appreciate that the
g-space doesn't have a local internet community, so we, in ICANN have built
one - the DNSO (GNSO). There, the constituents that we face at home -users,
providers, our national government, registrars  - even trade mark lawyers
like me  -meet to provide a balance of those interests for the g-space.

But it will be an open place  - the proposed International Assembly will be
open to all, to comment or question on things in relation to cctlds -and
you're all welcome.

Regards
Peter Dengate Thrush
Senior Vice Chair
Asia Pacific TLD Association
ccAdcom Meeting Chair

- --
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 11:39:13 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0060_01C2693F.2AA35AC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Gomes, Chuck=20
  To: 'Peter Dengate Thrush' ; [email-masked]=20
  Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:38 AM
  Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

  Peter,

  >Why shouldn't the structure require the ccTLD registries to sit =
around the table with the user community?  >Why shouldn't the ccSO have =
constituencies representing the user community?

  See my previous/concurrent  post -
  We do sit around the table with our user communtiy -at home, which is =
the equivalent to the DNSO -the place where policy for the particular =
registry is made. As trade mark law is entirely domestic (including the =
adoption  and implementation of international treaty law) there is no =
point in attempting to deal with trade mark issues, for example, except =
at home.

  >It seems to be that both gTLD and ccTLD registries and registrars can =
benefit with interaction with the user community.  But we shouldn't =
assume that the only way to do that is within the ICANN structure.

  Agreed - which is why the cctlds have the most comprehensive outreach =
and liaison programme of any group in the ICANN fold -bar none.

  Regards

  Peter Dengate Thrush
  Senior Vice Chair
  Asia Pacific TLD Association
  ccAdcom Meeting Chair

- ------=_NextPart_000_0060_01C2693F.2AA35AC0
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 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial" bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 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]">Gomes,=20
  Chuck</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">'Peter Dengate Thrush'</A> ; =
<A=20
  title=[email-masked] href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, October 01, 2002 =
12:38=20
  AM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [ga] FW: Comment =
from the=20
  gTLD Registry Constituency</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D756264212-30092002><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
color=3D#008080=20
  size=3D2>Peter,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D756264212-30092002><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
color=3D#008080=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D756264212-30092002><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
color=3D#008080=20
  size=3D2>&gt;Why shouldn't the structure require the ccTLD registries =
to sit=20
  around the table with the user community?&nbsp; &gt;Why shouldn't the =
ccSO=20
  have constituencies representing the user =
community?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D756264212-30092002><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
color=3D#008080=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D756264212-30092002><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
color=3D#008080=20
  size=3D2>See my previous/concurrent &nbsp;post -</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D756264212-30092002><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
color=3D#008080=20
  size=3D2>We do sit around the table with our user communtiy -at home, =
which is=20
  the equivalent to the DNSO -the place where policy for the particular =
registry=20
  is made. As trade mark law is entirely domestic (including the =
adoption&nbsp;=20
  and implementation of international treaty law) there is no point in=20
  attempting to deal with trade mark issues, for example, except at=20
  home.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D756264212-30092002><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
color=3D#008080=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D756264212-30092002><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
color=3D#008080=20
  size=3D2>&gt;It seems to be that both gTLD and ccTLD registries and =
registrars=20
  can benefit with interaction with the user community.&nbsp; But we =
shouldn't=20
  assume that the only way to do that is within the ICANN=20
  structure.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D756264212-30092002><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
color=3D#008080=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D756264212-30092002><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
color=3D#008080=20
  size=3D2>Agreed - which is why the cctlds have the most comprehensive =
outreach=20
  and liaison programme of any group in the ICANN fold -bar=20
  none.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D756264212-30092002><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
color=3D#008080=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D756264212-30092002><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
color=3D#008080=20
  size=3D2>Regards</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D756264212-30092002><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
color=3D#008080=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D756264212-30092002><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D2>Peter=20
  Dengate Thrush<BR>Senior Vice Chair<BR>Asia Pacific TLD=20
  Association</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D756264212-30092002><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
  size=3D2>ccAdcom Meeting =
Chair</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0060_01C2693F.2AA35AC0--

- --
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 12:37:31 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Wrong List (wasRe: [ga] regulating content

Thanks Jeff,
 as previously posted, matters of individual cctlds are not the preserve of
this list.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Michael D. Palage'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
"Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:18 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] regulating content

> Danny,
>
> To date, other than receiving spam to the .kids.us policy e-mail box,
there
> has not been any substantive comments received by NeuStar. That being
said,
> in the event that NeuStar receives any substantive comments regarding the
> .kids.us policy paper, we will post those comments as soon as the comment
> period has ended.
>
> Also, I would ask that all future questions regarding .us be addressed on
> .us's own public mailing list which can be accessed at:
> http://lists.neustar.biz/mailman/listinfo.cgi/policy-forum.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 1:08 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [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
> --
> 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 21:33:21 -0400
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Just let me clarify something for the record.  I never said that there would
be supreme body that would make global policies "binding" on all of the
ccTLDs.  My posting merely was meant to say that ICANN would be a good forum
to discuss these issues and come to some sort of best practices for global
policy matters.

As a representative of a ccTLD, I certainly understand there are differences
in National Laws that would make having certain uniform policies binding on
all ccTLDs.  But lets not use the shield of local law/local culture for
every single policy issue.  After all, maybe someone can educate me here,
but I am aware of no law/cultural issue that would prohibit the
implementation of a Redemption Grace Period (as one example).  I admit I
could be wrong and I am willing to listen.

Yes, there are certain issues where local law can come into effect (i.e.,
trademark law, privacy, etc.).  But it seems to me that often times ccTLDs
hide behind that shield to basically state that there can never be any
global policy issues.  After all, when local law/culture is not implicated,
what is the harm in trying to come together, building consensus and
standardizing some policy issues for the global internet community (whether
it is a ccTLD or a gTLD).

- -----Original Message-----
From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 8:27 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:36:47 -0400, "Neuman, Jeff"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>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. 

I have to strongly disagree that these issues would be suitable for
global policies binding on all ccTLDs.

.nz has spent a massive amount of time consulting with local users on
exactly these issues and the suggestion that the will of the local
internet community should be subservient to an ICANN process is not
one which would find favour.  DIfferent countries have different laws
relating to privacy, consumer protection, trademarks so the whole
notion of global policies over all 245 ccTLDs is never going to
happen.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 20:58:43 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Of course, but the point missed or avoided is that the Registries are
akin to mini-monopolies.  If it wasn't for that stark differentiation,
Free Enterprise would be the best course.

Monday, September 30, 2002, 7:21:18 AM, Gomes, Chuck <[email-masked]> wrote:
GC> Gene,

GC> I think you hit the nail on the head with regard to accountability.

GC> With regard to user representation, I personally think that may always be a
GC> very difficult challenge.  But it is one that I believe can be mostly dealt
GC> with by letting market mechanisms work as freely as possible so that users
GC> can speak through their buying patterns.  This does not at all mean that
GC> users should not have a prominent role in policy making within the ICANN
GC> environment.  It just means that the policy making procedures may always
GC> have limited effectiveness with regard to user representation.

GC> With regard to TLDs, users have quite a lot of choices now and hopefully
GC> even more in the future.  But if all registries are required to have the
GC> same policies, that will not give users as much choice as would be the case
GC> where registries could offer varying policies.  That is why I believe that
GC> global policies should be kept to a minimum, restricted to those that are
GC> essential for technical coordination of the net.

GC> Chuck

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gene Marsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:33 AM
>> To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Bret Fausett'; 'DNSO General Assembly'
>> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>> 
>> 
>> Chuck,
>> 
>> I understand the tenor of your argument.  However, is it not 
>> a small subset
>> that represents voters in Washington?  Is it not a group of 
>> individuals
>> running the show so they may push their special interests?  
>> The difference
>> is that the representatives sent to Washington have some level of
>> accountability to their constituents.
>> 
>> It seems to me that the focus is off - that the real focus 
>> whould be on how
>> to best represent those users.  Until the issue of 
>> appropriate, accountable
>> representation is addressed, there is no way to deflect 
>> criticism of the
>> representation.  It would be unacceptable to have no representation
>> whatsoever.
>> 
>> I would also suggest that you find someone other than Jeff 
>> Neumann to write
>> documents representing your position.  I don't know Jeff (sorry Jeff,
>> nothing personal), but his written English is lacking.  Concepts this
>> important to your argument should really be presented in a 
>> more clear and
>> elegant fashion.
>> 
>> Gene...
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Gomes,
>> Chuck
>> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 9:42 AM
>> To: Bret Fausett; Gomes, Chuck; DNSO General Assembly
>> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>> 
>> 
>> Bret,
>> 
>> I don't think I ignored that at all.  But just to clarify, 
>> that is why ICANN
>> should limit its policy making to a very narrow spectrum of 
>> issues related
>> to technical and stability issues.  Note that I definitely 
>> said that users
>> should have a strong voice in the polciy making process.  I 
>> just disagree
>> with a small subset of users who really do not represent all 
>> users running
>> the show so that they can push their special interests that 
>> are often not
>> the same as the broader interests of all users.
>> 
>> Chuck
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 12:36 PM
>> To: Gomes, Chuck; DNSO General Assembly
>> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>> 
>> 
>> Chuck,
>> 
>> What your analysis ignores is that ICANN develops policies 
>> that are binding
>> on users (e.g. UDRP) via the registration contract with 
>> registrars. Users
>> have no choice in the matter, so the market has no ability to 
>> ensure that
>> some registrars/registries will "not be successful over time" 
>> as a result of
>> bad policies. The only way to give users a voice in these 
>> policies, that are
>> as binding on them as the ICANN registry contracts are on 
>> your constituency,
>> is through the GNSO.
>> 
>>       -- Bret
>> 
>> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>> > At the same time, that does not mean that the impact to 
>> those not under
>> > contract is not important or even that it is less 
>> important.  In fact, I
>> > would argue that the ultimate users (customers) are what it 
>> is all about
>> > and, if businesses supporting those users ignore that fact, 
>> they will not
>> be
>> > successful over time.
>> --
>> 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
>> 
GC> --
GC> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
GC> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
GC> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
GC> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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 21:23:50 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Karen,

The platform of the e-mail which I answered, proclaimed the inequity
of the contract. It was not a case of my "inaccurate understanding" of
the actual contract. In contrast, my response was based upon the
essence of what the writer professed the contract to be and my own
common horse-sense and business sense.

Regardless, however, even after digesting your response, below, my
response continues to be the same. Market forces will dictate ICANN's
ability to negotiate. As for the contracting party, you can make an
informed business decision. Nothing prevents that and the grass-roots
users are not responsible for what you may choose to do or not choose
to do.  That is entirely your responsibility as the contracting party.

Just because the contract offered to you is not Utopia, doesn't give
you license to have more say in anything.  Actually, it is an excuse
and not a reason, anyway.

Just like in any business, it is the ultimate consumer who rules, one
way or another. Domain name registrations are not a departure into the
Alice in Wonderland world. It is as real as any other commodity. If
the grass roots didn't know that, there would be no debate.

The way it is - is frankly - the way it is.  No amount of dialog will
change reality.

Thanks,

Monday, September 30, 2002, 9:02:22 AM, Karen Elizaga <[email-masked]> wrote:
KE> Dear Don,

KE> The current form of the registry agreements that the gTLD registries are subject to in the current ICANN forum is not an "inequitable deal."  As you might imagine, no business could have created
KE> a justification for signing a deal which gives another party complete control over what we are obligated to do.  In fact, the current form provides the gTLD registries with certain protections
KE> from exactly that - we are only required to adopt policies that have been devised based on "consensus" among Internet stakeholders in the ICANN process.  As Internet stakeholders under the
KE> current structure, we theoretically have a say in these policies and therefore have not given up total control over what we are obligated to do.

KE> As this restructuring process continues to evolve, we believe that the distinction between users and providers within the GNSO is of paramount importance to maintain the protection that was
KE> contemplated in the registry agreements.  This protection will be made obsolete if the GNSO composition, where contracting parties are outnumbered by user groups, results in consensus being
KE> determined by the majority within that GNSO structure - where the user groups would be able to simply dictate "consensus" notwithstanding the fact that the contracting parties are the ones who
KE> are materially affected in implementing new policies.  

KE> Thus, your interpretation of the deals struck between any of the registries and ICANN is not entirely accurate.  They were not bad deals at their execution; rather, the deals will have devolved
KE> by virtue of external forces outside of our control.

KE> Regards.
KE> KE

KE> -----Original Message-----
KE> From: Don Brown [mailto:[email-masked]]
KE> Sent: 30 September 2002 01:40
KE> To: [email-masked]; Peter Dengate Thrush
KE> Cc: [email-masked]
KE> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

KE> Jeff,

KE> I completely understand your dilemma of having potentially "moving
KE> target" contractual obligations.

KE> Frankly, it's not very good business to sign a contract which gives
KE> the other party control over what you are obligated to do, from time
KE> to time and at their sole discretion, as well as the ability to
KE> dictate what you can charge for doing it. Conceivably, you could find
KE> yourself with an eroded margin and even operating at a loss in a worse
KE> case scenario. I'd say that is a very big business risk.

KE> Understanding the risk, as no doubt you do from your post below, what
KE> was the motivation to sign such an inequitable deal? Was it an
KE> abundance of faith at the time, dollar signs which blurred the vision
KE> or something else which I can't imagine right now?  Certainly, no one
KE> duressed a signature, I'm sure.  At least, there is no complaint about
KE> that below.

KE> Having a contract is, indeed, very different.  It gives contractual
KE> rights and imposes obligations.

KE> I'd bet that most people in the GA wished that the GA had a contract
KE> for those reasons, as well. I'd bet that most would, in fact, welcome
KE> it, right now.

KE> ICANN's consensus building process is a joke, in light of WLS. The
KE> ICANN Board will do whatever they want and the contract holders, like
KE> you, certainly seem to have much more power than the grass root domain
KE> name holders - ala GA, et al. They completely ignored the top
KE> recommendation from the NC (task force) and all input from the
KE> outreach, to approve WLS, regardless. Perhaps, due to the concerns
KE> express below, Chuck can be available to you for some moonlight
KE> consulting.

KE> Market forces will dictate contract negotiations with ICANN, just like
KE> any other firm.  If the deal isn't right, that's a business decision
KE> to make.  However, signing an inequitable deal is not sufficient
KE> justification for more representation and control than the grass roots
KE> domain name holders.  If you make a bad deal, well, shame on you, but
KE> that's not my fault or anyone elses' fault.  Consequently, it is not
KE> equitable for us to pay the price for a problem that you created and
KE> brought upon yourself.

KE> In the final analysis, it's the grass-roots stakeholders who have the
KE> most to lose, who merit equitable representation and who have been
KE> denied it. They didn't "knowingly" make a bad or risky deal. If you
KE> did, well, that's too bad. You can always bow out at the end of the
KE> contract, though, but the grass roots will still be the grass roots.
KE> Without them, heck, none of this would matter, anyway.

KE> Thanks,

KE> Sunday, September 29, 2002, 5:05:04 PM, Peter Dengate Thrush <[email-masked]> wrote:
PDT>> comments below
PDT>>   ----- Original Message ----- 
PDT>>   From: Neuman, Jeff 
PDT>>   To: [email-masked]' 
PDT>>   Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 10:24 AM
PDT>>   Subject: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

PDT>>   This is from the gTLD Constituency and has been sent to the ERC Committee.  I know this should spark some interesting debate.

PDT>>   Subject: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

PDT>>   >The Registry Constituency has been a vocal supporter of reform from its inception.  In fact, many of the Registries joined in a letter to the Department of Commerce expressing our support for
PDT>> the reform efforts.  One of the main reasons that we supported ICANN reform from the beginning was because of the perceived inefficiencies of the current DNSO. The result of such inefficiencies
PDT>> has led those parties that have contracts with ICANN (namely, the gTLD Registries and gTLD Registrars) to become disenfranchised with the current policy development process.  

PDT>>   Jeff - there's some irony in this. Its not the inefficiency of the DNSO which you were objecting to, it seems, buts its efficiency in "disenfranchising" you and the registrars.

PDT>>   >Too often, political games have been played to overshadow the voices of the Registries and the Registrars in the current process, even though it is recognized that most, if not all, of the
PDT>> proposed policies affect the contracted parties in a way that is much different than those parties that are not under contract with ICANN. Unfortunately, as the ERC process has evolved, the
PDT>> inefficiencies of the current DNSO appear to be re-emerging.

PDT>>   Again, you describe a political result you don't like as an "inefficiency".

PDT>>   >As the ERC properly realized, not all stakeholders are equally affected. 

PDT>>   >The registrars and registries are contractually bound to comply with any ICANN consensus policies.  New or changed policies can have a significant financial impact on their operations.  We
PDT>> believe that the protection of registrar and registry rights as contracting parties within the proposed GNSO is an important and essential safeguard. 

PDT>>   Here is where your argument becomes more difficult for me to follow. You seem to be elevating the contract between you/registrars and ICANN to a different level of political importance than
PDT>> the contract beteen a registrant and a registrar. Why? 

PDT>>   Given that all the funding flows from registrants to registrars, that the conditions of end use, and that much of the ICANN policy discussion is about the impact on users of names and address
PDT>> procedures, why isn't the view of the vast numbers of registrants significantly more important than the views of the providers??

PDT>>   Why shoudn't the g registries be obliged to adopt at least a little of the ethos (which we regard as contractually binding via RFC 1591, as well as socially appropriate) binding the cc
PDT>> registries, that the registry has to serve the community its provided to serve? Why shouldn't the structure require the registries and registrars to sit around the table with their user
PDT>> community?

PDT>>   If the conditions of the user community result in a business which is unprofitable, or unsuited, those entities running them can take a busines decision to leave that business. If, on the
PDT>> other hand, the conditions imposed by registries and registrars are unsuitable for users, where can they go?

PDT>>   My personal preference would be to ensure that users rights should be more carefully protected that those of registries and registrars, precisely because they are typically small, individual,
PDT>> disparate and the economic effect per person makes any issue uneconomic to fight. OTOH registries and registrars have well-known economic and political advantages.

PDT>>   You blur this issue to speak of "contracting parties" while ignoring the end user contracts.

PDT>>   There is a need to balance the undoubted importance of successful and innovative registries and registrars, competing in an economic battle for business, with the needs of users.  Considerable
PDT>> clarity of thinking is need to ensure all interests are kept in balance.

PDT>>   regards

KE> ----
KE> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
KE> [email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
KE> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
KE> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
KE> ----

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

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

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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 19:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I disagree with a couple points Karl.  Public utility commissions are
> properly equipped to perform their regulatory role and they provide
> procedures of due process; that makes them a very poor comparison with
> ICANN.

I read the situation the other way round - Public Utility Commissions
(usually) do a decent job trying to do their job; ICANN doesn't.  It isn't
the job that is the difference, it is the competency (or lack thereof)  
with which the job is done (or not done.)

ICANN is created to server the public interest - it says so right there in 
the Articles of Incorporation.  It is odd indeed that a body that is so 
dedicated should work for so long and with such determination to exclude 
the public from its forums while, at the same time, elevate and empower 
those bodies that, as a general matter, see the public as the source of 
their income.

> ICANN was given a very narrow mission

ICANN may have been "given" a narrow mission but it as grabbed and pulled
and insinuated itself into jobs to the point where ICANN has become a
supranational legislature of trademarks, judge and jury of trademarks, and
policeman of trademarks.  It has also become the micromanager of a myriad
forms of DNS businesses.

Virtually none of this has anything to do with the technical stability of
the internet - i.e. the ability of the net to swiftly, accurately, and
reliably move IP packets from source to destination addresses, and the
ability of ICANN's root to swiftly, accurately, and reliably delegate DNS
queries to TLD servers.

> Also, I know its popular to think that ICANN is captured by those it
> regulates, and for our own business interests, I almost wish that was the
> case.

One has only to look at the gift of .com in perpetuity and of the 
withholding of new TLD slots from those who wish to enter the domain name 
marketplace and thus benefiting the incumbents.

		--karl--

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1449
*************************