Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1451
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, October 1 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1451

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

Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 07:31:22 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: User input in the ccSO (was Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD  Registry Constituency

Here is the problem. Who should be developing the international
standards?
The worry is that when they are declared, that due to other political
causes, governments will force country nics into to using them.
The whois and the WLS are prime examples of ICANN being out of
touch.
What this results in, with the current system or the ERC concepts, is
that the IP
and major corporations route around community representation in ccTLDs.
I must say that dotCA has prevented such a result, but they are a large
developed
country and I do not believe this can be accomplished in our developing
countries.

Eric

Vittorio Bertola wrote:

>
> That's exactly what I have been saying in my message :-) However, there is a
> number of things that should be standardized as much as possible. For
> example: it is true that some ccTLDs might choose (or be forced by local
> law) not to publish a registrant's home address, but those who do should
> possibly use the same format so that when you make WHOIS queries around the
> world you are sure about how to read the result whenever available. Simple
> things like that, free to adopt for any TLD that likes them, can make life
> easier to all users without limiting the TLD's freedom - and in fact are
> what I would consider a correct interpretation of the role of "coordinator".
> --
- --
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 11:34:33 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Loss of voting rights, October 20, 2002

The Council Chair has posted the following notice.
(excerpts):

ISPCPC:
Show-cause notice on July 18, 2002
Final notice August 20, 2002
Loss of voting rights, October 20, 2002
ISPCPC amount owed $13.994 for 2002
A 5% late fee of $699.70 was levied on 18 July, 2002.
An additional 5% late payment fee of $ 699.70 for the final notice, August
20.

NCDNHC:
Show cause notice on July 18, 2002
Final notice August 20, 2002
Loss of voting rights, October 20, 2002
NCDNHC amount owed $13.774 fore 2002
A 5% late fee of $699.20 was levied on 18 July, 2002.
An additional 5% late payment fee of $ 699.20 (final notice)

ccTLDs:
Show cause notice July 18, 2002
Final notice August 20, 2002
Loss of voting rights, October 20, 2002
ccTLD amount owed  $11,994.
A 5% late fee of $599.70 levied on 18 July, 2002
An additional 5% late payment fee of $ 524.75

Conclusion
**********

Until payment is received for all past due amounts, including any late
payment fees, the ccTLDs, NCDNHC, and ISPCPC will lose voting rights as of
20 October 2002.  This will have an impact on the Names Council meeting on
28 Oct 2002.

Note that the lack of voting rights does not stop the participation of all
constituencies in names council meetings.  I hope the non-voting
constituencies will continue to participate actively in names council
activities until (or if) the new GNSO and CNSO are formed.

What I propose is that for any resolution that is voted on after 20 October
2002, we note:
(1) for, against, and abstentions for voting members which will decide names
council resolutions in accordance with our rules of procedure and ICANN
bylaws
(2) for, against, and abstentions for non-voting members - this information
will be made publicly available in the minutes of the names council

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00092.html
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- ----------

Had the ICANN Board approved the DNSO resolution to underwrite the costs of 
the DNSO Secretariat, we wouldn't now be in this predicament.  However, that 
particular effort was effectively sabotaged by the registrars and registries 
that through the Budget Advisory Committee recommended against any such 
financial support... 

What a wonderful affirmation of the concern of "contracting parties" for the 
needs of the user community.  

- --
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 11:48:49 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Ross,

I never said that "users" should not be involved in policy development.
Obviously the DROC litigation did not teach you a lesson about false and
inaccurate statements.

Mike

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ross Wm.
Rader
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:15 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

> This has to be one of the most inaccurate postings in recent memory.

And completely besides the original point. To get back to the real issue,
the registry constituency and the registrar constituency executive have
determined somehow that "users" need not be concerned with the development
of policy within the DNSO.

This is an untenable position that completely ignores the reality of the
DNSO by assuming that the contracts that registries and registrars have with
ICANN should somehow provide them with preferential treatment at the expense
of registrants. Brett rightly pointed out that there is a compromise
position here that isn't being explored - perhaps it is time to pick up that
ball and run with it.

                       -rwr

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

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

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

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

> This has to be one of the most inaccurate postings in recent memory.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <
> trims
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:36 AM
> 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.
> >
> >
>
> For any one to seriously regard these as issues which a cctld is going to
> regard as not entirely matters of local law is sadly out of synch. with
> reality.
>
> There is nothing -not even the existence (or not) of any of these which
> necessarily has the slightest to do with ICANN. They are all operational
> requirements within the local law.
>
> Some -perhaps all of these - might be adopted by a local cctld if its
people
> believe they want them (Most in fact have them) But to suggest that its an
> ICANN issue whether we in NZ (for example) even have a policy on escrow is
> quite misguided.
>
> Say it after me: IT IS NOT ICANN"S JOB TO MANAGE THE CCTLDs.
>
> If a cctld is run "badly", it is not ICANN's job to make it run to its
> definition of "well".
>
> If a cctld wants to run with out escrow -whatever I or you may think of
> that -that is its choice.
>
> It does not derive permission to run the cctld from ICANN. ICANN merely
> manages the IANA database which records who the manager is. Crucial
> distinction from the gtlds.
>
> It has nothing to do with ICANN - with technical coordination of domain
> names, if, in a country, there were no provision for resolving complaints
of
> cybersquatting. How can it possibly be  of any concern to the technical
> stability of the net if  trade mark owners were arguably losing rights
> because others were registering their brands as domain names?
>
> Either those trade mark owners have remedies under the local law - or they
> don't, and nothing about ICANN or cctld management can have anything to do
> with it.
>
> Other responsible for Mr Neuman need to understand how damaging this kind
of
> foolishness is.
>
> The potential for creating a place where the advisability of these issues
> can be discussed, where experience can be shared, and common practices
> voluntarily adopted for the common good will be quite lost.
>
> Count up how many countries have signed contracts with ICANN.  Ever wonder
> why even countries like Canada, Mexico, France, Korea  and the
Netherlands,
> all of whom have had citizens on the ICANN board are missing from the
list?
>
> Regards
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Senior Vice Chair
> Asia Pacific TLD Association
> ccAdcom Meeting Chair
>
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Senior Vice Chair
> Asia Pacific TLD Association
>
> --
> 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 12:48:08 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Loss of voting rights, October 20, 2002

Karl,

You wrote:  "Never during my term on the board has this question been 
discussed by the board."  

On 13 December 2001, the Council sent its Resolution on Funding the DNSO 
Secretariat to the ICANN Board.  Subsequently the Budget Advisory Group sent 
a counter-recommendation to the Board, and ICANN Management adopted the 
latter recommendation.  In response to this effort to undercut the consensus 
of the DNSO by the registries and registrars, Phil Sheppard wrote directly to 
Linda Wilson, Chair of the Finance Committee for an explanation.  The letter 
was copied to Ivan, Helmut, and Jon Cohen.

Receiving no response from director Wilson or any other director, Phil wrote 
once more, this time also copied to Stuart Lynn, Alejandro Pisanty and Louis 
Touton.  Once again, no response.

Somehow I'm not surprised that the entire Board can receive notification of a 
Council resolution and never act to discuss it.  I am also not surprised that 
letters sent directly to six individual directors are ignored, not discussed 
and don't even warrant the courtesy of a reply to the Council list.  
Meanwhile the Board is quite comfortable reimbursing the GAC Secretariat to 
the tune of $75,000.

Be sure to thank your fellow Board members for their responsiveness to the 
Community.  Glad to see that they are doing such an outstanding job keeping 
abreast of the issues.

- --
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 13:02:10 -0400 
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Again, here is the gTLD position and this is what the statement said:

"The registrars and registries are willing to work with the non-contracting
parties within the same supporting organization, the GNSO, to make the ICANN
process work, but only if the safeguards proposed by the ERC in the Second
Implementation Report are adopted.  These includes, most significantly, the
provision giving contracted parties equal voting representation as those
that are not under contract with ICANN. "

We ask for EQUAL voting representation.  Where does it say in the above
statement that the contracted parties should have MORE voting rights than
the noncontracting parties in the aggregate?  Where does it say that
noncontracting parties should not have any say in policies?

Thanks.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:49 AM
To: Ross Wm. Rader; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Ross,

I never said that "users" should not be involved in policy development.
Obviously the DROC litigation did not teach you a lesson about false and
inaccurate statements.

Mike

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ross Wm.
Rader
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:15 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

> This has to be one of the most inaccurate postings in recent memory.

And completely besides the original point. To get back to the real issue,
the registry constituency and the registrar constituency executive have
determined somehow that "users" need not be concerned with the development
of policy within the DNSO.

This is an untenable position that completely ignores the reality of the
DNSO by assuming that the contracts that registries and registrars have with
ICANN should somehow provide them with preferential treatment at the expense
of registrants. Brett rightly pointed out that there is a compromise
position here that isn't being explored - perhaps it is time to pick up that
ball and run with it.

                       -rwr

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

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

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

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

> This has to be one of the most inaccurate postings in recent memory.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <
> trims
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:36 AM
> 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.
> >
> >
>
> For any one to seriously regard these as issues which a cctld is going to
> regard as not entirely matters of local law is sadly out of synch. with
> reality.
>
> There is nothing -not even the existence (or not) of any of these which
> necessarily has the slightest to do with ICANN. They are all operational
> requirements within the local law.
>
> Some -perhaps all of these - might be adopted by a local cctld if its
people
> believe they want them (Most in fact have them) But to suggest that its an
> ICANN issue whether we in NZ (for example) even have a policy on escrow is
> quite misguided.
>
> Say it after me: IT IS NOT ICANN"S JOB TO MANAGE THE CCTLDs.
>
> If a cctld is run "badly", it is not ICANN's job to make it run to its
> definition of "well".
>
> If a cctld wants to run with out escrow -whatever I or you may think of
> that -that is its choice.
>
> It does not derive permission to run the cctld from ICANN. ICANN merely
> manages the IANA database which records who the manager is. Crucial
> distinction from the gtlds.
>
> It has nothing to do with ICANN - with technical coordination of domain
> names, if, in a country, there were no provision for resolving complaints
of
> cybersquatting. How can it possibly be  of any concern to the technical
> stability of the net if  trade mark owners were arguably losing rights
> because others were registering their brands as domain names?
>
> Either those trade mark owners have remedies under the local law - or they
> don't, and nothing about ICANN or cctld management can have anything to do
> with it.
>
> Other responsible for Mr Neuman need to understand how damaging this kind
of
> foolishness is.
>
> The potential for creating a place where the advisability of these issues
> can be discussed, where experience can be shared, and common practices
> voluntarily adopted for the common good will be quite lost.
>
> Count up how many countries have signed contracts with ICANN.  Ever wonder
> why even countries like Canada, Mexico, France, Korea  and the
Netherlands,
> all of whom have had citizens on the ICANN board are missing from the
list?
>
> Regards
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Senior Vice Chair
> Asia Pacific TLD Association
> ccAdcom Meeting Chair
>
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Senior Vice Chair
> Asia Pacific TLD Association
>
> --
> 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 13:27:25 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

> We ask for EQUAL voting representation.  Where does it say in the above
> statement that the contracted parties should have MORE voting rights than
> the noncontracting parties in the aggregate?

Preferential treatment. Registries and Registrars each represent but one
interest group.

> Where does it say that
> noncontracting parties should not have any say in policies?

Its implicit in the position. Further, I've heard it said many times "Users
should not have a role in determining the policies/rules/processes/code that
registries/registrars are forced to implement."

                       -rwr

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

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

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

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Michael D. Palage'" <[email-masked]>; "Ross Wm. Rader"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:02 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

> Again, here is the gTLD position and this is what the statement said:
>
> "The registrars and registries are willing to work with the
non-contracting
> parties within the same supporting organization, the GNSO, to make the
ICANN
> process work, but only if the safeguards proposed by the ERC in the Second
> Implementation Report are adopted.  These includes, most significantly,
the
> provision giving contracted parties equal voting representation as those
> that are not under contract with ICANN. "
>
> We ask for EQUAL voting representation.  Where does it say in the above
> statement that the contracted parties should have MORE voting rights than
> the noncontracting parties in the aggregate?  Where does it say that
> noncontracting parties should not have any say in policies?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:49 AM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
>
> Ross,
>
> I never said that "users" should not be involved in policy development.
> Obviously the DROC litigation did not teach you a lesson about false and
> inaccurate statements.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ross Wm.
> Rader
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:15 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
>
> > This has to be one of the most inaccurate postings in recent memory.
>
> And completely besides the original point. To get back to the real issue,
> the registry constituency and the registrar constituency executive have
> determined somehow that "users" need not be concerned with the development
> of policy within the DNSO.
>
> This is an untenable position that completely ignores the reality of the
> DNSO by assuming that the contracts that registries and registrars have
with
> ICANN should somehow provide them with preferential treatment at the
expense
> of registrants. Brett rightly pointed out that there is a compromise
> position here that isn't being explored - perhaps it is time to pick up
that
> ball and run with it.
>
>                        -rwr
>
>
>
>
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
>
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
>
> Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
> http://www.byte.org/heathrow
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 8:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
>
> > This has to be one of the most inaccurate postings in recent memory.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Neuman, Jeff" <
> > trims
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:36 AM
> > 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.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > For any one to seriously regard these as issues which a cctld is going
to
> > regard as not entirely matters of local law is sadly out of synch. with
> > reality.
> >
> > There is nothing -not even the existence (or not) of any of these which
> > necessarily has the slightest to do with ICANN. They are all operational
> > requirements within the local law.
> >
> > Some -perhaps all of these - might be adopted by a local cctld if its
> people
> > believe they want them (Most in fact have them) But to suggest that its
an
> > ICANN issue whether we in NZ (for example) even have a policy on escrow
is
> > quite misguided.
> >
> > Say it after me: IT IS NOT ICANN"S JOB TO MANAGE THE CCTLDs.
> >
> > If a cctld is run "badly", it is not ICANN's job to make it run to its
> > definition of "well".
> >
> > If a cctld wants to run with out escrow -whatever I or you may think of
> > that -that is its choice.
> >
> > It does not derive permission to run the cctld from ICANN. ICANN merely
> > manages the IANA database which records who the manager is. Crucial
> > distinction from the gtlds.
> >
> > It has nothing to do with ICANN - with technical coordination of domain
> > names, if, in a country, there were no provision for resolving
complaints
> of
> > cybersquatting. How can it possibly be  of any concern to the technical
> > stability of the net if  trade mark owners were arguably losing rights
> > because others were registering their brands as domain names?
> >
> > Either those trade mark owners have remedies under the local law - or
they
> > don't, and nothing about ICANN or cctld management can have anything to
do
> > with it.
> >
> > Other responsible for Mr Neuman need to understand how damaging this
kind
> of
> > foolishness is.
> >
> > The potential for creating a place where the advisability of these
issues
> > can be discussed, where experience can be shared, and common practices
> > voluntarily adopted for the common good will be quite lost.
> >
> > Count up how many countries have signed contracts with ICANN.  Ever
wonder
> > why even countries like Canada, Mexico, France, Korea  and the
> Netherlands,
> > all of whom have had citizens on the ICANN board are missing from the
> list?
> >
> > Regards
> > Peter Dengate Thrush
> > Senior Vice Chair
> > Asia Pacific TLD Association
> > ccAdcom Meeting Chair
> >
> > Peter Dengate Thrush
> > Senior Vice Chair
> > Asia Pacific TLD Association
> >
> > --
> > 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 13:41:12 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Jeff Neuman writes:  "Where does it say that noncontracting parties should 
not have any say in policies?"

Jeff Neuman also writes on what is or what is not "new policy":  "That is for 
the ICANN staff, the Registry Operators and Registrars to work out as set 
forth in the Registry Agreements."
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00534.html

The registries and registrars want to make sure that only they are the folks 
that get to determine what constitutes "policy".  Consider the recent motion 
put forth and unanimously agreed upon by the registrars at their meeting in 
Amsterdam:  

"Motion: That registrars seek a clarification from ICANN that the transfers 
issue is not a policy issue, so that it be treated by ICANN as an issue to be 
solved outside the GNSO process, all the while approving the idea of 
registrars’ signing these contracts with Verisign registry."

The transfers issue affects millions upon millions of registrants -- how they 
can have the gall to claim that this is not a policy issue defies the 
imagination.  But this is what we can expect if registrars and registries can 
thwart the resolve of the user community through the exercise of veto power 
as currently contemplated in the ERC plan.

Contracting parties don't warrant enhanced voting rights at the expense of 
the rest of the community.  This is a self-interested faction that has 
well-demonstated that they must be kept in check.

- --
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 14:03:35 -0400 
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Danny, you consistently do this and pick and choose statements and take them
out of context.  

If you read the Transfer Task Force  Report, you will see exactly what I am
commenting on.  In the draft, Ross had made a statement that a dispute
resolution process was not "new policy."  I made the statement that
introducing a new dispute resolution process may in fact be "new policy" and
as such would require a change to existing Registry/Registrar Agreements.
What does that have to do with not involving users in the process?  Answer:
Nothing.

Why not read and cite this post:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00515.html in which I
explain that we need more time for public input (from the constituencies and
users) on the Transfers Task Force Report before the issue goes before the
NC.  

Danny, please do not make an argument out of context.

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:41 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Jeff Neuman writes:  "Where does it say that noncontracting parties should 
not have any say in policies?"

Jeff Neuman also writes on what is or what is not "new policy":  "That is
for 
the ICANN staff, the Registry Operators and Registrars to work out as set 
forth in the Registry Agreements."
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00534.html

The registries and registrars want to make sure that only they are the folks

that get to determine what constitutes "policy".  Consider the recent motion

put forth and unanimously agreed upon by the registrars at their meeting in 
Amsterdam:  

"Motion: That registrars seek a clarification from ICANN that the transfers 
issue is not a policy issue, so that it be treated by ICANN as an issue to
be 
solved outside the GNSO process, all the while approving the idea of 
registrars’ signing these contracts with Verisign registry."

The transfers issue affects millions upon millions of registrants -- how
they 
can have the gall to claim that this is not a policy issue defies the 
imagination.  But this is what we can expect if registrars and registries
can 
thwart the resolve of the user community through the exercise of veto power 
as currently contemplated in the ERC plan.

Contracting parties don't warrant enhanced voting rights at the expense of 
the rest of the community.  This is a self-interested faction that has 
well-demonstated that they must be kept in check.

- --
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 14:16:27 -0400 
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Ross,

Your statements ignore the fact that on many issues (and you have agreed
with me in the past), the interests of all user groups are aligned in the
same material way.  For example, with respect to transfers, how do the
interests of IP owners, Business Users, and Noncommercial Users differ.  The
answer is that they do not in any material way.  

Yet, in the current constituency and voting process, this one position has
three votes, whereas the Registries have one vote and the Registrars have 1
vote.  Please help me understand the justification for this.  We do not want
to exclude anyone from the debate.  

We just want the Board to be given an accurate assessment of what is going
on so that they can be in a position to determine whether consensus actually
exists.    

We do not want preferential treatment, just equal.  

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:27 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Michael D. Palage'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

> We ask for EQUAL voting representation.  Where does it say in the above
> statement that the contracted parties should have MORE voting rights than
> the noncontracting parties in the aggregate?

Preferential treatment. Registries and Registrars each represent but one
interest group.

> Where does it say that
> noncontracting parties should not have any say in policies?

Its implicit in the position. Further, I've heard it said many times "Users
should not have a role in determining the policies/rules/processes/code that
registries/registrars are forced to implement."

                       -rwr

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

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

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

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Michael D. Palage'" <[email-masked]>; "Ross Wm. Rader"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:02 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

> Again, here is the gTLD position and this is what the statement said:
>
> "The registrars and registries are willing to work with the
non-contracting
> parties within the same supporting organization, the GNSO, to make the
ICANN
> process work, but only if the safeguards proposed by the ERC in the Second
> Implementation Report are adopted.  These includes, most significantly,
the
> provision giving contracted parties equal voting representation as those
> that are not under contract with ICANN. "
>
> We ask for EQUAL voting representation.  Where does it say in the above
> statement that the contracted parties should have MORE voting rights than
> the noncontracting parties in the aggregate?  Where does it say that
> noncontracting parties should not have any say in policies?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:49 AM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
>
> Ross,
>
> I never said that "users" should not be involved in policy development.
> Obviously the DROC litigation did not teach you a lesson about false and
> inaccurate statements.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ross Wm.
> Rader
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:15 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
>
> > This has to be one of the most inaccurate postings in recent memory.
>
> And completely besides the original point. To get back to the real issue,
> the registry constituency and the registrar constituency executive have
> determined somehow that "users" need not be concerned with the development
> of policy within the DNSO.
>
> This is an untenable position that completely ignores the reality of the
> DNSO by assuming that the contracts that registries and registrars have
with
> ICANN should somehow provide them with preferential treatment at the
expense
> of registrants. Brett rightly pointed out that there is a compromise
> position here that isn't being explored - perhaps it is time to pick up
that
> ball and run with it.
>
>                        -rwr
>
>
>
>
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
>
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
>
> Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
> http://www.byte.org/heathrow
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 8:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
>
>
> > This has to be one of the most inaccurate postings in recent memory.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Neuman, Jeff" <
> > trims
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:36 AM
> > 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.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > For any one to seriously regard these as issues which a cctld is going
to
> > regard as not entirely matters of local law is sadly out of synch. with
> > reality.
> >
> > There is nothing -not even the existence (or not) of any of these which
> > necessarily has the slightest to do with ICANN. They are all operational
> > requirements within the local law.
> >
> > Some -perhaps all of these - might be adopted by a local cctld if its
> people
> > believe they want them (Most in fact have them) But to suggest that its
an
> > ICANN issue whether we in NZ (for example) even have a policy on escrow
is
> > quite misguided.
> >
> > Say it after me: IT IS NOT ICANN"S JOB TO MANAGE THE CCTLDs.
> >
> > If a cctld is run "badly", it is not ICANN's job to make it run to its
> > definition of "well".
> >
> > If a cctld wants to run with out escrow -whatever I or you may think of
> > that -that is its choice.
> >
> > It does not derive permission to run the cctld from ICANN. ICANN merely
> > manages the IANA database which records who the manager is. Crucial
> > distinction from the gtlds.
> >
> > It has nothing to do with ICANN - with technical coordination of domain
> > names, if, in a country, there were no provision for resolving
complaints
> of
> > cybersquatting. How can it possibly be  of any concern to the technical
> > stability of the net if  trade mark owners were arguably losing rights
> > because others were registering their brands as domain names?
> >
> > Either those trade mark owners have remedies under the local law - or
they
> > don't, and nothing about ICANN or cctld management can have anything to
do
> > with it.
> >
> > Other responsible for Mr Neuman need to understand how damaging this
kind
> of
> > foolishness is.
> >
> > The potential for creating a place where the advisability of these
issues
> > can be discussed, where experience can be shared, and common practices
> > voluntarily adopted for the common good will be quite lost.
> >
> > Count up how many countries have signed contracts with ICANN.  Ever
wonder
> > why even countries like Canada, Mexico, France, Korea  and the
> Netherlands,
> > all of whom have had citizens on the ICANN board are missing from the
> list?
> >
> > Regards
> > Peter Dengate Thrush
> > Senior Vice Chair
> > Asia Pacific TLD Association
> > ccAdcom Meeting Chair
> >
> > Peter Dengate Thrush
> > Senior Vice Chair
> > Asia Pacific TLD Association
> >
> > --
> > 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 #1451
*************************