Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1453
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, October 2 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1453

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

Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:17:02 -0400 
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Danny,

Its amazing that you can make such comments without having participated in
the open Transfers calls these past few weeks.  Of course that is all you
are seeing because you have not been participating.

Over the past few weeks/months, had you been paying attention to the task
force, the Registrars and User groups have been asking that the Registries
take a more active role in transfer disputes precisely because ICANN is not
a signatory to the Registry/Registrar Agreement.  If that were to happen,
then as you know, there will be costs incurred by the Registries in
implementing a dispute process.

The question then becomes who bears the costs of such processes.  If the
dispute is that one registrar is not providing the correct documentation (as
required under the RRA), then it is pretty easy to state that the Registry
should enforce its agreement to require the production of such documents.
In those types of circumstances, it may be appropriate that the Registries
to foot the bill, since it is merely an issue of enforcing our own
agreements.

However, if there is a dispute as to whether the registrant had apparent
authority to transfer a particular domain name, the issue becomes a lot more
complicated and more expensive.  Initially, it was the position of any on
the TF that the Registries should foot the entire bill for these disputes
and that the Registries should be the arbiter of these disputes.  However,
these types of disputes could cost a lot of money for a Registry to preside
over.  Certainly a lot more than the $5.00 - $6.00 that a Registry collects
from a typical domain name registration. 

This could be handled in several manners, which need to be explored.  The
idea that I have floated, which seems to have gained some acceptance, is
that any fees for such dispute processes should be borne by the registrar
that loses the dispute process.  This could deter certain registrars from
engaging in behavior that discourages the free portability of domain names.
On the other hand, in a matter that is a close call (or a legitimate
dispute), is it fair to put the entire burden on the registrar that loses
the good faith dispute?  Some say yes, others say no.

The bottom line is that if there are disputes that are not strict contract
interpretations, then costs should not be borne by the Registries especially
because the registries are not part of the dispute.  Who pays the costs?  

That being said, the bulk of the TF Report deals with best practices aimed
at making transfers easier for the users and the users that have joined the
public calls seem to be supportive.  Only a small fraction deals with
dispute resolution.  I, for one, am optimistic that transfer questions can
be solved by relying on the bulk of the document without ever getting to a
dispute resolution phase.  That may be too optimistic, I realize.

While you are correct that I am speaking in terms of Registries and
Registrars, the reality is that the members of the TF are looking towards
making the transfer process more efficient, predictable and reliable for
users.  Hopefully with the TF document that is coming out soon, there will
be improvements in the process for users/registrants.  If not, then give us
a concrete proposal on how we can improve the draft other than stating that
ICANN should be involved.  How should ICANN be involved?  What should ICANN
do when an end-user comes to them?  Please comment on the draft from a user
perspective.  I for one am interested in getting your feedback.

Thanks. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:47 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Jeff, 

It continues to be your intent to draft transfers policy within the context 
of the registry-registrar agreement to which ICANN is not a signatory.  By 
deeming the proposal to constitute "new policy" your goal is to ensure that 
registries receive payment for adjudication services under the Prices for 
Registry Services clause.  This serves only your own self-interest.  
Meanwhile, registrants are not empowered to appeal to ICANN should their 
requested transfer be denied because ICANN in the context of this contract 
has no enforcement obligations.  

This is not a user-friendly approach, and user needs would better be served 
by placing the policy language within the Registrar Accreditation Agreement 
to which ICANN is indeed a party and in which they are obliged to take an 
enforcement role.  Your current plan makes no provision for registrant
appeal 
(as only registrars may initiate the appeals process, and these registrars 
may choose not to invoke such process should they be daunted by the prospect

of having to pay significant fees to a registry should their appeal fail).  
Again, user interests are not being put at the forefront of such discussion;

rather the debate has centered solely upon which constituency gets stuck 
paying the bill for enforcement.  

Instead of seeing a concern for users, all that I am seeing is registries 
attempting to devise yet another way of making a buck.  
- --
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 14:26:28 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: User input in the ccSO (was Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Peter and all assembly members,

Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vittorio Bertola" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 9:46 PM
> Subject: Re: User input in the ccSO (was Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD
> Registry Constituency
>
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:57:40 +1200, you wrote:
>
> >It is also true that there are areas where coordinated action between ICANN
> and the ccTLDs could benefit both of them.
>
> Interesting semantics -ICANNis supposed to be the coordinator of the
> players, including the ccTLds and, say the Address registries. Interesting
> that it has a role of its own, and we are expected to coordinate with it....

  Yes this is interesting but with their recent announcement that ICANN under
the new MoU it is supposed to stick to it's knitting so to speak, i.e. technical

coordination issues only with representation os all of the interested
stakeholders/users.

>
>
> >For example, since there is to be
> some form of At Large membership, perhaps the ccTLDs who already have it or
> want to have it could share the burden of registering individuals, so users
> would sign up once for ICANN and for their ccTLDs, and the general workload
> to maintain this membership would be smaller. This is definitely something
> that the users and the ccSO should discuss in the near future.
>
> I have facilitated the presence of At Large speakers at several of the past
> ICANN meetings, but have to say that the cctlds are little interested in
> this sort of additional work load.

  This is a shame that the ccTLD registry "Managers" are so disinterested
in their registrant because of the additional "Workload"...  This is obviously
part and parcel to the stakeholers/users being dissatisfied with the level
of service from some ccTLD's registries that they are receiving and that
fuels the fires of ICANN stepping in and redeligating those ccTLD's
that are seemingly loaded with dissatisfied Registrants, ect...

  Perhaps an attitude change from some ccTLD's is necessary or
in their best interest?  Perhaps the ccSO effort could sponsor with
other stakeholders/users, especially from the ISP community, a
"ccTLDatlarge"?  ccTLDatlarge.org anyone and/or Peter?  I am
pretty sure that a number of our [INEGroup] members would be willing
to assist in sponsoring this sort of effort.  It would also serve to off
load some of the "Workload" that you mention here in your above
response, Peter.  Are your Game?

>
>
> >Again, I agree with your view, and I agree that ccTLDs should not be forced
> to adopt policies that they don't like (instead, they should be encouraged
> to do so by the fact that those policies are good, and that most other
> ccTLDs are adopting them). Anyway, since there are policies that would
> benefit from central coordination - just to name one, WHOIS uniformity
> across the ccTLDs
>
> Excuse me, but a policy cannot benefit from coordination  -some of the
> participants might.In this case, there are huge local law issues that make
> it certain that a uniform approach to whois is most unlikely -for the
> forseeable.

  You mean "Not for the foreseeable future"?  If so, I would tend to
agree.  But ICANN is trying to change or force this issue, and
has for some time now.  Such a forceful effort will only gain the
legal community financial benifits and serve to only confuse,
disgruntel, and add to cost to the stakeholders/users.  I don't
find that very stabilizing...

> See the recent lawsuit threated against Nominet in the UK as a
> recent example of the local policy/ local law in operation.

  Yes just read that yesterday.  Very interesting indeed.

> The fact that
> there is an enormously passionate dabate in (just) the g space on whois
> issues( trade mark owners/biz vs individual privacy/ safety, for eg) might
> indicate that when you take this issue and muliply it by 190 culural and
> legal flavours you are going to get a complex cocktail, not a milkshake...

  Good point here.  And I hope well taken as well...

>
>
> - there must be a way for the ccSO to develop such
> policies at a central level, with the input of the users too.

  I briefly mentioned one (See above).  A ccTLDatlarge might
be useful here...

> This is why we
> (as the ALAC Advisory Group) suggested that there should be an At Large
> liaison to the ccSO Council.

  Liaisons are fine for some purposes, but for actual stakeholder/user
representation they are basically useless as the stakeholders/users
of ccTLD's have really not direct voice, and no vote at all.  That's
not representative at all...

> I would strongly suggest, for example, that
> when the ccSO sets up working groups it should include a representative of
> the ALAC in them. Would you consider this?
>
> Yes. We have had a DNSO liaison Group for some time, are working with the
> GAC on regional liaision and expect to establish other formal liaison
> systems with others.
>
> 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

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 14:35:16 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Eric and all assembly members,

  Interesting view here Eric.  But I got to say you got a very good
point here!  Nice thinking!

  I would also have to add, as far as DNS is concerned a TLD is a TLD,
is a TLD...  What is commonly called a ccTLD is one that denotes
a country code, .COM does not.  Yet .COM is exclusively now
a US based TLD/gTLD, by contract from ICANN and approved
by the DOC/NTIA in exchange for redeligating .ORG and .NET,
along with some cash from Verisign to exclusively have .COM.

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Leah,
>
> I think we should peel one more layer off the Onion.
>
> dotCom should be looked at as a ccTLD controlled by the USG.
> We are looking at these TLDs backwards.  If it is controlled by a country, which
> dotCOM clearly is then it is a ccTLD.  If it is not and is open and inclusive
> then it should be a gTLD based upon free enterprise and the market.  Some domains
> under some TLDs should be worth 500$ USD and some should be worth 2 cents.
>
> Yes ICANN should only worry about functionality and not market or control.
>
> At least it is another way to look at it.
> eric
>
> Leah Gallegos wrote:
>
> > Karen and Don:
> >
> > In reality, IMO, the bottom line is that ICANN should have little or nothing
> > to do with dictating how a registry should operate, nor should it have
> > anything to do with pricing or consumer protection.  The only area where
> > ICANN should be involved is determination of whether the registry can operate
> > technically to provide the required service to the community.
> >
> > As in any other business, the consumer will decide whether he wants to do
> > business wth a particular company.  If they get
> > good service for reasonable prices, they will come back.  If not, they will
> > leave.
> >
> > I think the only possible exception would be in the case of of the .com
> > registry since it was handed to a firm by the USG.  That seems to imply some
> > sort of control or regulation.
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> 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, 1 Oct 2002 15:49:30 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Jeff,

The First Interim Implementation Report made the following comment:

"In our view, the Ombudsman should be a person to whom those who believe they 
have been treated unfairly in the context of ICANN processes can turn to for 
an independent evaluation and, potentially, facilitation of a resolution if 
the complaint is determined to be well founded. In sum, the Ombudsman as we 
envision it is an input mechanism for complaints, an independent voice in 
evaluating and resolving those complaints, and a potential source of 
suggestions on how to improve ICANN procedures and processes to reduce 
complaints."

ICANN has already produced a concrete proposal that attends to the resolution 
of disputes through the use of the Ombudsman function which is fully 
supported financially by ICANN.  What's so wrong with using their solution as 
the basis by which a registrant's transfers grievance is resolved?  Put the 
policy language into the RAA and ICANN is thereby required to provide an 
enforcement function.  Couple it with Ombudsman services and you have solved 
the problem with no expense to either the registries or registrars or 
registrants.  
- --
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 16:02:16 -0400 
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

That is one possible alternative.  Personally, I believe with the number of
complaints the ombudsman is going to get with other issues coupled with the
number of transfer disputes that already exist, the Ombudsman will not be
able to handle the load of work.

That is just my opinion.  But your suggestion it is certainly worth
discussing.

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 3:50 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Jeff,

The First Interim Implementation Report made the following comment:

"In our view, the Ombudsman should be a person to whom those who believe
they 
have been treated unfairly in the context of ICANN processes can turn to for

an independent evaluation and, potentially, facilitation of a resolution if 
the complaint is determined to be well founded. In sum, the Ombudsman as we 
envision it is an input mechanism for complaints, an independent voice in 
evaluating and resolving those complaints, and a potential source of 
suggestions on how to improve ICANN procedures and processes to reduce 
complaints."

ICANN has already produced a concrete proposal that attends to the
resolution 
of disputes through the use of the Ombudsman function which is fully 
supported financially by ICANN.  What's so wrong with using their solution
as 
the basis by which a registrant's transfers grievance is resolved?  Put the 
policy language into the RAA and ICANN is thereby required to provide an 
enforcement function.  Couple it with Ombudsman services and you have solved

the problem with no expense to either the registries or registrars or 
registrants.  
- --
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 14:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

Hello,

- --- Bret Fausett <[email-masked]> wrote:
> where is the gTLD registry interest? Under the "equal voting
> representation"
> plan, however, when UDRP revision comes up for consideration in the
> GNSO
> Council, the gTLD registries will have 25% of the votes. Does that
> make any
> sense? By the same token, where's the intellectual property interest
> (as
> distinguishable from the interests of registrants generally) in
> transfers?
> Yet we're setting up a system in which established groups will have a
> set
> vote on each and every issue.

The same thing happens in government all the time. For instance, a US
Federal bill which mostly affects residents of Texas, say for a
military base closing, or that mainly affects steel producing states
(e.g. introduction of trade tariffs on foreign steel) are still voted
upon by the entire legislature, including members from Rhode Island.
Often there are secondary impacts on others (e.g. higher tariffs might
mean higher car prices, due to higher steel prices), and those parties
seemingly less affected might actually be more affected. 

Those who truly are not impacted directly can still use their votes to
help arrive at a just policy (e.g. at the UN, my own country of Canada
isn't hugely impacted by events in Africa, relative to countries that
are much closer, but can use its voice and votes to try to reach good
recommendations and be respected for that because they are somewhat
impartial.

Sincerely,

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 17:55:19 -0400
From: Leah Gallegos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

On Tuesday 01 October 2002 02:35 pm, Cassidy Sehgal wrote:
> 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

I disagree.  Under the present circumstances, where users are detrementally 
impacted by policy with little or no choice of alternatives, they must have a 
voice in any policy regardless of how it is to be implemented.  As long as 
policy is uniform among all registries and policy impacts an interested party 
there must be a voice.

The real solution is for ICANN to simply stay out of business practices policy 
and allow the users to choose what registries they are willing to do business 
with.   However, until there is *real* choice among many gTLDs, it is all 
moot, IMO.  Users must have a substantial vote on any policy that impacts 
them under present conditions.

Leah

- --
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 14:20:49 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Loss of voting rights, October 20, 2002

> 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.

How perfect to be able to disenfranchise half the community from the very
procedure that confirms what is already known. Without a documented record
of a formal vote, consensus in the wider cannot be confirmed, which serves
the Staff well if they want to continue claiming a greater understanding of
consensus in the wider community than the Board's own domain name supporting
organization. Well done Bruce.

Regards,
Joanna

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:43:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Loss of voting rights, October 20, 2002

Hello,

I suspect the real reason for this is linked to WLS, and the appeal
that is currently underway. If those 3 constituencies were removed (all
of whom voted against WLS), then only 4 constituencies remain. The
Business Constituency can still be counted on to vote against WLS.

However, the IP and gTLD registries voted for WLS last time. That
leaves the Registrars Constituency as the possible "swing vote" (they
voted against WLS last time), that could give a new vote a 3/4
majority, and thus a "consensus". And if you saw the WLS debate in the
Registrars Constituency last time, I wouldn't put it past some of the
participants to try to reverse their vote by any means possible (e.g.
voting according to market share, so that NSI would have a majority in
the Registrars Constituency).

Note that ICANN has seemingly not responded to Dotster's appeal, and
could be waiting for the above scenario to be in place.

However, the above can be thwarted, if the need arises, by having
opponents of WLS donate the money to one of the three disenfranchised
constituencies (whoever owes the least, presumably), so that they can
cast one more vote against WLS. With 2 out of 5 votes against WLS, even
if the Registrars Constituency position was turned, they'd still be
short the 2/3 majority required to make a new "consensus".

Sincerely,

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

- --- Joanna Lane <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> How perfect to be able to disenfranchise half the community from the
> very
> procedure that confirms what is already known. Without a documented
> record
> of a formal vote, consensus in the wider cannot be confirmed, which
> serves
> the Staff well if they want to continue claiming a greater
> understanding of
> consensus in the wider community than the Board's own domain name
> supporting
> organization. Well done Bruce.
> 
> Regards,
> Joanna

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

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

Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:14:36 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Loss of voting rights, October 20, 2002

Sorry to spoil a good conspiracy theory, but..
this has been coming (at least in re the cctlds) for a lot longer that WLS.

Dues have long been unpaid, notices sent - all in conformity with the
rules...

regards
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:43 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Loss of voting rights, October 20, 2002

> Hello,
>
> I suspect the real reason for this is linked to WLS, and the appeal
> that is currently underway. If those 3 constituencies were removed (all
> of whom voted against WLS), then only 4 constituencies remain. The
> Business Constituency can still be counted on to vote against WLS.
>
> However, the IP and gTLD registries voted for WLS last time. That
> leaves the Registrars Constituency as the possible "swing vote" (they
> voted against WLS last time), that could give a new vote a 3/4
> majority, and thus a "consensus". And if you saw the WLS debate in the
> Registrars Constituency last time, I wouldn't put it past some of the
> participants to try to reverse their vote by any means possible (e.g.
> voting according to market share, so that NSI would have a majority in
> the Registrars Constituency).
>
> Note that ICANN has seemingly not responded to Dotster's appeal, and
> could be waiting for the above scenario to be in place.
>
> However, the above can be thwarted, if the need arises, by having
> opponents of WLS donate the money to one of the three disenfranchised
> constituencies (whoever owes the least, presumably), so that they can
> cast one more vote against WLS. With 2 out of 5 votes against WLS, even
> if the Registrars Constituency position was turned, they'd still be
> short the 2/3 majority required to make a new "consensus".
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> --- Joanna Lane <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > How perfect to be able to disenfranchise half the community from the
> > very
> > procedure that confirms what is already known. Without a documented
> > record
> > of a formal vote, consensus in the wider cannot be confirmed, which
> > serves
> > the Staff well if they want to continue claiming a greater
> > understanding of
> > consensus in the wider community than the Board's own domain name
> > supporting
> > organization. Well done Bruce.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Joanna
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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
>

- --
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 23:05:16 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Loss of voting rights, October 20, 2002

Peter, Geroge and all assembly members,

  George, Peter is quite right.  If you have been following along adequately
you would of course know this.  But Peter, in no way does that diminish
the fact that the "Rules" to which you refer, were never adopted by
the constituencies.  In fact quite the contrary.  Pay-to-vote is despicable
and grossly disenfranchising in nature.

  On the other hand, George, although sometimes overly interested
in conspiracy theory's of various types, and in many different directions,
also makes a good point as to possible/likely results...

Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:

> Sorry to spoil a good conspiracy theory, but..
> this has been coming (at least in re the cctlds) for a lot longer that WLS.
>
> Dues have long been unpaid, notices sent - all in conformity with the
> rules...
>
> regards
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:43 PM
> Subject: RE: [ga] Loss of voting rights, October 20, 2002
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I suspect the real reason for this is linked to WLS, and the appeal
> > that is currently underway. If those 3 constituencies were removed (all
> > of whom voted against WLS), then only 4 constituencies remain. The
> > Business Constituency can still be counted on to vote against WLS.
> >
> > However, the IP and gTLD registries voted for WLS last time. That
> > leaves the Registrars Constituency as the possible "swing vote" (they
> > voted against WLS last time), that could give a new vote a 3/4
> > majority, and thus a "consensus". And if you saw the WLS debate in the
> > Registrars Constituency last time, I wouldn't put it past some of the
> > participants to try to reverse their vote by any means possible (e.g.
> > voting according to market share, so that NSI would have a majority in
> > the Registrars Constituency).
> >
> > Note that ICANN has seemingly not responded to Dotster's appeal, and
> > could be waiting for the above scenario to be in place.
> >
> > However, the above can be thwarted, if the need arises, by having
> > opponents of WLS donate the money to one of the three disenfranchised
> > constituencies (whoever owes the least, presumably), so that they can
> > cast one more vote against WLS. With 2 out of 5 votes against WLS, even
> > if the Registrars Constituency position was turned, they'd still be
> > short the 2/3 majority required to make a new "consensus".
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > George Kirikos
> > http://www.kirikos.com/
> >
> > --- Joanna Lane <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > How perfect to be able to disenfranchise half the community from the
> > > very
> > > procedure that confirms what is already known. Without a documented
> > > record
> > > of a formal vote, consensus in the wider cannot be confirmed, which
> > > serves
> > > the Staff well if they want to continue claiming a greater
> > > understanding of
> > > consensus in the wider community than the Board's own domain name
> > > supporting
> > > organization. Well done Bruce.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Joanna
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
> --
> 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 21:41:27 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Loss of voting rights, October 20, 2002

Wow what a killjoy Peter,
There is a very important maxim in negotiating a good contract;
"make sure both sides have a benefit"
Otherwise why stay with the contract?
I am very hopeful that all three groups will just say no!
e

Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:

> Sorry to spoil a good conspiracy theory, but..
> this has been coming (at least in re the cctlds) for a lot longer that WLS.
>
> Dues have long been unpaid, notices sent - all in conformity with the
> rules...

- --
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: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 07:36:46 -0400 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

So it seems to me that we should arrange a methodology that prevents any one
group from having so much power that they can control the process and
thereby remove incentives to work on solutions that all stakeholders might
be willing to support.  It doesn't matter whether we are talking about those
under contract or those who are not under contract or for that matter any
other classification.  Our goal should be to find a solution that is the
best for all after considering all stakeholders' concerns.  It should not be
to see who has the most votes.  Unfortunately, as long as one group has the
voting edge, that group really doesn't need to listen and possibly
compromise.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:32 PM
To: Ross Wm. Rader; Neuman, Jeff; 'Michael D. Palage'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

> We ask for EQUAL voting representation.

As I noted yesterday, the big problem with set voting blocks is that the
allocation doesn't take any account of the issue under discussion. Take UDRP
revision as one example. The groups most impacted are trademark holders and
domain name registrants. Registrars have an implementation obligation. But
where is the gTLD registry interest? Under the "equal voting representation"
plan, however, when UDRP revision comes up for consideration in the GNSO
Council, the gTLD registries will have 25% of the votes. Does that make any
sense? By the same token, where's the intellectual property interest (as
distinguishable from the interests of registrants generally) in transfers?
Yet we're setting up a system in which established groups will have a set
vote on each and every issue.

         -- 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
- --
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: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 05:12:12 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] P2P

I think we should really help ICANN survive by making them viable.

Between this   http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992861

IPv16 and Inclusive roots, China and EU and the ccTLD movement, and the
significant drop in gTLD dollar values, and NIC independence concepts it
would seem that ICANN will shortly just become a spokesman for dotCOM.
The boom has come to a bust.

buy a dotVN or a dotMX, they may be expensive but the money generally
goes to build infrastructure for developing nations rather than to huge
monopolistic corporations.

Eric

- --
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: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 08:09:21 -0400
From: "Ram Mohan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0679_01C269EB.0394A720
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Leah, and fellow Assembly members:

Leah>>Users must have a substantial vote on any policy that impacts them =
under present conditions.

I do not have a problem with this concept -- the new GNSO does provide =
users with a substantial voice.  The problem is that, as currently =
defined, users have an overwhelming vote, which provides users the =
opportunity (and perhaps the motive) to ignore the voice of providers =
and still claim consensus - and force providers to implement such =
policies.  This plan does not provide equal representation.

There is clear agreement that parties affected by policies (ie. users =
and providers) must have a voice.  What users & providers need to do is =
to find a way to restore *parity* in the new GNSO.  The current decision =
model, based on numerical ways to achieve decisions, provides no parity =
between users & providers.  As long as we stick with a numerical votes =
method, we then are responsible to ensure that this method does not =
disadvantage one group with respect to the other.

Left unchanged, the current plan inevitably pits users against =
providers, when both parties should be equal members around the table =
trying to solve the "real" issues at hand.  Left unchanged, the =
underpinnings of the GNSO will be threatened at every significant turn.  =
Left unchanged, the GNSO will become a body whose policy-making ability =
and authority will be severely curtailed, if not destroyed.

We need to work together to reach agreement -- so that the goals of =
reform don't get abandoned before we even begin.

Ram

- --------------------------------------------------------=20
Ram Mohan=20
Vice President, Business Operations=20
Afilias.INFO=20
p: +1-215-706-5700; f: +1-215-706-5701=20
e: [email-masked]=20
- --------------------------------------------------------=20

- ------=_NextPart_000_0679_01C269EB.0394A720
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Leah, and fellow Assembly =
members:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Leah&gt;&gt;<FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3>Users must have a substantial vote on any policy that impacts =
them under=20
present conditions.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3>I do not have a=20
problem with this concept -- the new GNSO does provide users with a =
substantial=20
voice.&nbsp; The problem is&nbsp;that, as currently defined, users have =
an=20
overwhelming vote, which provides users the opportunity (and perhaps the =
motive)=20
to ignore the voice of providers and still claim consensus - and force =
providers=20
to implement such policies.&nbsp; This plan does not provide equal=20
representation.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>There is clear agreement that parties affected by =
policies=20
(ie. users and providers) must have a voice.&nbsp; What users &amp; =
providers=20
need to do is to find a way to restore&nbsp;*parity* in the new =
GNSO.&nbsp; The=20
current decision model, based on numerical ways to achieve decisions, =
provides=20
no parity between users &amp; providers.&nbsp; As long as we stick with =
a=20
numerical votes method, we then are responsible to ensure that this =
method does=20
not disadvantage one group with respect to the =
other.</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Left unchanged, the current =
plan&nbsp;inevitably=20
pits users against providers, when both parties should be equal members =
around=20
the table trying to solve the "real" issues at hand.&nbsp; Left =
unchanged, the=20
underpinnings of the GNSO will be threatened at every significant =
turn.&nbsp;=20
Left unchanged, the GNSO will become a body whose policy-making ability =
and=20
authority&nbsp;will be severely curtailed, if not =
destroyed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>We need to work together to reach =
agreement -- so=20
that the goals of reform don't get abandoned before we even =
begin.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Ram</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>-------------------------------------------------------- =
<BR>Ram Mohan=20
<BR>Vice President, Business Operations <BR>Afilias.INFO <BR>p: =
+1-215-706-5700;=20
f: +1-215-706-5701 <BR>e: <A=20
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>=20
<BR>--------------------------------------------------------=20
<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0679_01C269EB.0394A720--

- --
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 #1453
*************************