Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1455
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, October 4 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1455

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

Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 08:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Final Implementation Report and proposed new Bylaws

On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Rick Wesson wrote:

> ARTICLE XVII: MEMBERS
> 
> ICANN shall not have members, as defined in the California Nonprofit
> Public Benefit Corporation Law ("CNPBCL"), notwithstanding the use of the
> term "Member" in these Bylaws, in any ICANN document, or in any action of
> the ICANN Board or staff.
> 
> and there goes the baby with the bath water....

For my evaluation of the fallicy of ICANN's position in that regard see my 
note at: http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/platform.htm#full-members

Of course ICANN will claim, as they have always done, that my legal
positions are specious and unmerited.  I will merely refer to 
http://www.eff.org/Infra/DNS_control/ICANN_IANA_IAHC/Auerbach_v_ICANN/20020807_auerbach_judgment.pdf

If that URL is too long, go to:
http://www.eff.org/Infra/DNS_control/ICANN_IANA_IAHC/Auerbach_v_ICANN/

Could you remind me who was it who has claimed to have been the author of
ICANN's bylaws and thus probably the author of that assertion that "ICANN
shall not have members, as defined in the California Nonprofit Public
Benefit
                                ^^^^^^^^^^
Corporation Law"?

		--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

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

Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:12:28 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf MP3 recording October 3, 2002

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

The MP3 recording of the Names Council teleconference October 3, 2002 is
available at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20021003.NCteleconf.mp3

Happy listening!
DNSO Secretariat

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

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

Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:24:16 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Annual ICANN meeting in early December 2002

Folks,

For those who did not yet read the long text of ERC Final Report
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/final-implementation-report-02oct02.htm

In "3. The New Bylaws", third section, there is an announce
of annual ICANN meeting in early December 2002.

    As noted above, the ERC's recommendation is that at the 
    Shanghai meeting in late October the community and Board 
    focus on the structure and processes of the steady-state 
    future of ICANN, and defer until an annual meeting in 
    early December the many details of how to transition from 
    the current ICANN to the reformed ICANN. 

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

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

Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:14:59 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .org bidders' comments

I would have blogged this if I was at home...

ICANN has posted the .org bidders' final comments at
<http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments-03oct02.htm>. Only
seven of the 11 bidders have bothered to comment.  Most of these
comments are pointing to various actual or perceived flaws of the
evaluation, and basically boil down to "we are the best if criteria
or results are slightly fixed as follows".

The single comment which is really worth your time is the one from
IMS/ISC.  The criticism in that comment is on a much more
fundamental level than what the other bidders write.  

In particular, the concept that _any_ bidder except Verisign could
have _demonstrated_ experience is attacked on the basis that no
published success monitoring statistics are available, and that the
new registries are only operating for a very short amount of time.

As an additional goodie, the report contains, for comparison, a
brief report on the bidding process for .com/.net/.org in 1992 [the
year when I left my first vi session by turning off the terminal...]
- - the one which was ultimately won by NSI.  In particular, they
report about one alternative proposal by Rick Adams which would have
introduced a registry/registrar separation even back then, but was
(according to this account) not selected on the basis of being "too
simple".

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

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

Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:38:35 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf minutes September 12, 2002

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

ICANN/DNSO

      DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 12 September 2002 - minutes

13 September 2002.

Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020912.NCteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:

Elisabeth Porteneuve   ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay     ccTLD
Philip Sheppard        Business
Marilyn Cade           Business
Grant Forsyth          Business
Greg Ruth              ISPCP  absent, proxy to Tony Holmes
Antonio Harris         ISPCP absent
Tony Holmes            ISPCP
Philipp Grabensee      Registrars absent
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars
Roger Cochetti         gTLD
Jordyn Buchanan        gTLD
Cary Karp              gTLD
Ellen Shankman         IP
Laurence Djolakian     IP
J. Scott Evans         IP
Harold Feld            NCDNH absent, apologies, proxy to Erick
Chun Eung Hwi          NCDNH  absent, apologies, proxy to Erick
Erick Iriate           NCDNH

15 Names Council Members

Ross Rader                Invited guest, Transfer Task Force
Thomas Roessler           GA Chair

Glen de Saint Géry     NC Secretary
Philippe Renaut          MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat

MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020912.NCteleconf.mp3

Quorum present at 15:10 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during
summer time in the northern hemisphere).

Bruce Tonkin chaired this NC teleconference.

Approval of the Agenda
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020912.NCteleconf-agenda.html
The agenda was approved

Bruce reminded everyone that a year ago many ICANNers were on their way back
from the Uruguay meetings when the tragic event of 11 September happened
which affected everyone and led to many people being stuck experiencing
great difficulties in getting in touch with loved ones.
Glen reminded the group that we are all really together as a global
community, asked to join hands and form a virtual chain, fill their hearts
with love and peace and observe a minute of silence.

Item 1. Summaries of last meetings:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020801.NCteleconf-minutes.htmlhttp://www.dn
so.org/dnso/notes/20020829.NCteleconf-minutes.html

Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Philip Sheppard,
The motion was carried.

Decision 1: Motion adopted.

Item 3: Actions from last meeting- report on suggested process for
addressing deletes. (15 minutes)

Bruce proposed the following course of action for dealing with the deletes
issue after consultation with Marilyn Cade, chair of transfers task force
(where deletes has been discussed in context of transfers and WLS):
Steps are as follows:
(1) Produce an issues report for the NC meeting on 3 Oct 2002. The issues
report will be produced using the resources of a small team (deletes issues
team) comprising: Bruce Tonkin Alexander Svensson Ross Wm. Rader Ram Mohan
Jordyn A. Buchanan Liu, Hong The report will be available by 19 September so
that it may be discussed within the constituencies prior to the 3 Oct
meeting.
(2) At the meeting of 3 Oct 2002, decide whether to initiate policy action,
and whether to create a task force.
(3) If the decision is to create a task force, then an interim membership of
the taskforce will be established, and a draft terms of reference developed
and posted for consideration by constituencies by 17 October 2002.
(4) If a task force is created, then the NC will discuss and agree on the
task force, terms of reference, outcomes and timeline for the task force at
the meeting in Shanghai on Tuesday 29 October 2002.

Marilyn Cade proposed that the process as outlined go forward and Ken Stubbs
seconded the proposal.
Unanimously accepted by the Names Council members

Decision 2: Accept proposition by Bruce Tonkin following the course of
action for dealing with the deletes issue.

Item 4: Update on ICANN Board election process (5 minutes)

The secretariat reported that to date, Alejandro Pisanty had received 16
endorsements, YJ Park 8 and Vivek Durai 7, thus it was sure that Alejandro
Pisanty would stand for election as 10 endorsements are required per
candidate.

The voting procedure as laid out in
http://www.dnso.org/elections/2002.DNSO-ICANN-voting-proc.html
defines that the vote by electronic ballot must be confirmed by a Names
Council teleconference and the Secretariat would enquire which date, 26 or
27 September would be most suitable for all Council members to confirm the
vote.

Action: Enquire from the members which date, 26 or 27 September is most
suitable.

Item 5. - Transfer Task Force - review current status of outcomes with
respect to the terms of reference.

Bruce Tonkin summarized as follows:
TRANSFERS Task Force Terms of Reference (process started 11 October 2001):
The purpose of the Task Force on Transfers is to:
- --develop broad understanding across the NC of the issues underlying the
disputed area of transfers of domain names between registrars
- --ensure understanding of the proposed approach as documented in the
Registrars' procedural document, which has been voted on by the Registrars
- --identify any broad policy issues (separate from contract issues), which
are the responsibility of the DNSO -devise recommendations which have broad
cross constituency support to any identified problems arising from the
language of the existing agreements where policy needs to guide contractual
changes.
- --undertake a "fast track" working effort, via a Task Force, to present a
proposal for NC consideration at Marina del Ray NC meeting and to recommend
next steps, if any.
Transfers Task Force Recommendation
Current situation:
The gaining registrar can initiate a transfer after receiving a request from
a registrant. There is no minimum standard as to how the gaining registrar
should confirm a transfer request, and the process has been open to abuse
(e.g robust telemarketing).
The losing registrar can deny a transfer for several reasons, including if
the losing registrar doubts the identity of the person that has approved the
transfer. There is no standard that defines in detail how the losing
registrar determines if the registrant has given approval. This process has
also been open to abuse by effectively denying nearly all transfers.
Recommendation:
The transfers task force has proposed a detailed process for improving both
the steps above.
The gaining registrars must confirm a transfer request (the original request
may contain the auth-code as part of an EPP registry implementation) by
attempting to contact either the administrative contact of the domain name
in the WHOIS, or the registrant directly.
The administrative contact or registrant must then explicitly consent to the
transfer.
This consent is described by a "Form of Authorisation" that provides the
name of the gaining registrar and a concise statement describing the impact
of the registrant's decision. The gaining registrar must keep records of the
consent.
A losing registrar may contact the administrative contact or registrant to
confirm the intent to transfer. If the contact denies the transfer, then the
losing registrar will deny the transfer on the registrant's behalf (this is
sometimes called NACK). If there is no reply, the losing registrar will rely
on the processes of the gaining registrar (this is sometimes called default
ACK).
Ross Rader commented that it was an accurate summary of the situation.

Marilyn Cade was concerned about the impact that changes would have on the
registrants and the way they would be informed,to which Bruce Tonkin agreed
that explaining the process to the registrants in a simplified way was
important.
Roger Cochetti, quoting a similar procedure in the telephone company world,
where a third party was used to provide independent verification of the
registrant's wishes, said that a subscriber had to confirm his intent to
change while the present recommendations rely on the goodwill of the gaining
registrar, as well as the failure of the registrant to reject the notice of
transfer. Roger recommended that the task force develop an enforcement
structure to avoid gaming of the processes. In addition he felt the work on
enforcement should be completed, before a whole evaluation could be made.
In discussion , Ross Rader said that the recommendations stressed the
importance of obtaining authority and an enforcement structure to balance
the policy.
J.Scott Evans said users were being affected and very dissatisfied with the
present state of affairs.

Marilyn Cade said that an interim report would be posted next week for
public comment.
There would also be a Transfer session in Shanghai which was planned before
the Names Council meeting.

Bruce Tonkin thanked Marilyn Cade, Ross Rader and the task force for the
work they have done.

Item 6. - WHOIS Task Force - review current status of outcomes with respect
to the terms of reference (see below) - seek feedback from NC members on
draft recommendations and points of contention within the task force (30
minutes).

Bruce Tonkin summarized the situation:

WHOIS Task Force Terms of Reference
The WHOIS Committee is to conduct an information gathering exercise and
draft a report identifying areas of agreement, and highlighting where more
work is necessary and the mechanism by which the identified work is
undertaken (Task Force/Working Group). Present the draft report to the
community for review and comment, then finalise the report and submit the
report to the NC.
WHOIS Task Force Draft Recommendations:
(A) Accuracy of data contained in the WHOIS database
- - enforcing the existing contractual provisions in the gTLD environment.
- - a method of graduated sanctions or enforcements should be considered, in
order to facilitate the actual enforcement of the current policy with
respect to WHOIS data accuracy. If not, then more substantial changes to the
Registrars Accreditation Agreement itself or the establishment of consensus
policies (as necessary) should be considered.
(B) Uniformity of data formats and elements across various TLDs and
registrars, including ccTLDs.
- - uniform data format across gTLD and ccTLD environments should be
evaluated.
uniform WHOIS data elements across all gTLDs.
uniformity of data elements across gTLDs and ccTLDs: should be the subject
of separate deliberations taking into account specific aspects of the TLD
environments, the value of accountability and transparency across the domain
name system and public interest concerns.
(C) Better searchability of WHOIS databases.
ICANN should explore both enforcing the mandate to registrars and registries
to provide (or to cooperate in the provision of) such complete WHOIS search
service, and a market-based approach based on bulk access to WHOIS data. The
Task Force suggests that ICANN explore how best to swiftly develop and
implement a plan for cross-registry Whois services, including through third
party services, based on bulk access to WHOIS data.
(D) Marketing use of WHOIS data; bulk access provisions.
- - review of the current bulk access provisions of the Registrar
Accreditation Agreement,
- - exploring the option to reduce registrars' discretion in the design of
their respective bulk access agreements,
- - stronger privacy protection for registrants,
- - stronger restrictions on marketing use of WHOIS data,
- - facilitation of bulk access for value-added non-marketing services, as
originally contemplated in the RAA.

Laurence Djolakian reported that different working groups had been formed to
facilitate the work and few public comments were received.
Marilyn Cade said that outreach to people with expertise is going on. An
official session of the WHOIS could be held in Shanghai if there is enough
interest. The coordination with other groups doing similar work would
benefit the Task Force.
Elisabeth Porteneuve asked about the WHOIS concerning IP addresses, and
while the Task Force had not examined the issue, Bruce Tonkin said that it
had come up in the Security committee and that Rick Wesson could be asked to
coordinate on this issue.
Ken Stubbs urged that a methodology for identifying abusers who use bulk
data for spamming should be developed and ICANN should enforce provisions,
otherwise Governments would step in and impose sanctions. A statement echoed
by Philip Sheppard.

Bruce Tonkin said that the 4 areas in the recommendations should be
discussed within the constituencies.

Marilyn Cade said that another draft for public comment and elaboration in
the 4 areas was due out soon.

Roger Cochetti and Ellen Shankman excused themselves and dropped off the
call.

Item 7 - Feedback from Second Interim Implementation Report from the
committee of ICANN Evolution and Reform
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/second-implementation-report-02s
ep02.htm

Philip Sheppard made 2 comments:
- - that the report shows good signs of listening to what thecommunity has
been saying. 3 GNSO representatives for the first year will automatically
fall to 2 after one year. Suggests a resolution that there should be a
review process after one year.
- - There is a fundamental shift in stakeholder representation being suggested
and double voting to bodies with contractual relationships with ICANN. There
should be a balance of interest of the two groups and any variation from the
principle of equal stakeholder constituency representation and votes in the
proposed GNSO council is unacceptable.
Tony Holmes said that a key issue for the ISPCPs was the representation from
3 to 2 which has geographical diversity implications and the document does
not reflect this. In addition he asked about the ability of the Names
Council to pick up critical issues that had been discussed and have not been
acknowledged and make further representation in the time frame available.
Marilyn Cade said that the attitude conveyed to all broad stakeholder
groups, such as the Regional IP Registries (RIR), root server operators,
ccTLD and gTLD registries was a very top down process and a risky approach
as ICANN is built on a bottom up, with participation from a broad range of
stakeholders from the technical community to the policy making bodies to the
ccTLDs. She suggested conveying to the Evolution and Reform Committee that
it should be an evolutionary process and changes could be destructive. The
relationship with the RIRs should be documented, recognition given to
establishing a separate Country Code Supporting organisation and define the
processes to interact with the gTLDs.

Erick Iriate excused himself and dropped off the call

Elisabeth Porteneuve said that the ccTLDs had made an enormous effort during
August to contact the ERC and work out procedures and this has been
completely by passed. They have set up a committee with members theychoose
and the ccTLDs are very dissatisfied.

Thomas Roessler, GA chair, joined the call 16:25 CET

Oscar Robles said that an assistance group had been set up, but the
membership was not known and not to ask the ccTLDs was a mistake. However he
felt that it was important to support the work of this group as the working
period is only two weeks. He said that at least one of the people was from
the European Union.
Invitations have been sent out to an unknown population and only a sub group
has some information about the assistance group.
Ken Stubbs said that he was confused by what Elisabeth (no ccTLD members on
this committee)and Oscar (committee is in process of being formed) said.
He expressed concern about the ccTLD involvement in developing policy for
competitive TLDs, that is, gTLDs. The argument given for their participation
is that the ccTLDs are representing their constituency, their residents.
While in the beginning when the DNSO was formed there were a series of
constituencies to represent various elements within the Internet such as the
Business constituency. As we move forward with the future ICANN, the ccTLDs
are not enamoured with the Registrars or gTLD Registries being involved in
developing policies for them dealing with ICANN, such as redelegation, not
the policies in their countries, but the policies dealing with ICANN
specifically. If we could get an assurance that the ccTLDs would take a step
back and allow those constituencies who deal with policies as they relate to
gTLDs, it would be much easier to provide encouragement for their position
as we move forward.
Elisabeth Porteneuve responded saying that ccTLDs have only been asking for
correct IANA functioning, the updating in IP name servers is not being done
by ICANN. The reason for being part of the ICANN process is the IANA
function and the root server service.
Ken Stubbs expressed concern on an ongoing basis, and said that he was not
saying the ccTLDs should not be part of the process.

Bruce Tonkin suggested that Philip Sheppard, Elisabeth Porteneuve and
Marilyn Cade send motions to the Names Council list to be seconded and voted
on by e-mail ballot.

Item 8. - Agenda topics for next meeting 3 Oct 2002
- - review activities of task forces not covered in this meeting (decide
whether terms of reference are still relevant, and whether some task forces
should be closed)
* UDRP (review terms of reference and current progress)
* IDN
* Structure task force
- - Task force chairs (proposed by Jordyn Buchanan)
- - Budget items- update on constituency payments

AOB:
Circulation of resolutions by the 19th September and then send out voting
ballot.

Tony Holmes suggested inviting Alejandro Pisanty to the next Names Council
teleconference on October 3, 2002.
The final report will have to be considered before Shanghai

Bruce Tonkin thanked the council members for their participation.

The teleconference ended at 17:10

Next NC teleconference will be on Thursday 26 or Friday 27 September at
15:00 Paris time, 13:00 UTC/GMT

     See all past agendas and minutes at
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/2002calendardnso.html
     and calendar of the NC meetings at
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.NC-calendar.html

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

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

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

Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 15:16:29 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: ITU Plenipot.Conf. on ITU-ICANN relations

Here is the ITU press release on the discussion mentioned
on the ICANN.blog (http://icann.blog.us/2002/10/03.html#a779):

>Managing Internet Domain Names and Addresses
>
>The Plenipotentiary is faced with two common proposals on 
>managing Internet domain names, one from Europe, and the 
>other from Africa. Both propose that ITU work more closely 
>with other international organizations and participate 
>actively in the reform of the Internet Corporation for 
>Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
>
>Resolution 102 of PP-98 recommends that the management of 
>Internet addresses and names must reflect the geographical 
>and functional characteristics of the Internet. Given ITU’s 
>role in the development of IP standards and protocols for 
>the Internet, the European proposal calls for greater 
>partnerships with Internet standardization organizations 
>(such as IETF), governments and the private sector, and 
>recommends that ITU contribute directly to the reform of 
>ICANN. It also calls on ITU to facilitate a truly global 
>discussion on the issues of Internet management and has 
>proposed an amended version of Resolution 102.
>
>The United States, seeing much ground for consensus between 
>the European and African proposals, suggested the creation 
>of a drafting group that would bring the two proposals 
>together. This suggestion was quickly accepted.
(http://www.itu.int/newsroom/pp02/Highlights/0310.html)

Unfortunately, neither of the proposals (African countries/ATU,
European countries/CEPT) is available on the Plenipotentiary
Conference site (http://www.itu.int/plenipotentiary/), except for
governments, ITU sector members and journalists. The drafting 
group has been working on a joint proposal today, hoping to have 
a document ready for discussion on Monday.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

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

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

Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 18:32:11 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Unresolved issues about the ALAC in the Final Implementation Report

Dear ERC members and Chairman,

please let me express my first comments to your Final Implementation Report
(these comments are personal and do not represent an official view of the
ALAC-AG, ISOC Italy or icannatlarge.com).

First of all, I thank you for accepting many of the ALAC-AG suggestions.
However, I am strongly concerned by the transition issues that you have not
addressed yet, but for which you hint at some possible solutions in the
report.

I am aware that there is a chicken-and-egg problem in the composition and
selection process we suggested for the ALAC; even if I originally hoped that
the new At Large structures could be in place and choose their
representatives in the ALAC by the first meeting of year 2003, I acknowledge
that this target might be unrealistic, and that it might be necessary and
advisable that the Board appoints an interim ALAC in Shanghai.

However, the fact that the first instance of the ALAC needs to be
Board-appointed does not mean that the rest of the mechanism cannot work
from the first day, nor that we need to enter an interim phase of unknown
length in which the ALAC won't be fully empowered. In fact, such interim
phase would only lengthen the unsettled situation in which the At Large
issue lays since ICANN's inception in 1998, a situation that has cast huge
shadows about the stability, legitimacy and effectiveness of ICANN.

In section 3.E point 2 of the report, you seem to be prospecting a situation
where, in the first NomCom, the seats delegated to the ALAC will not be
filled by the interim ALAC, but otherwise. This would be in my opinion a
mortal blow to the credibility and strength of the newly created Committee,
and would put its effectiveness in serious danger.

While I understand (though I don't share) the Board's natural concern about
keeping the first nomination process under control to guarantee a positive
result in such a delicate moment, I think that reserving to the Board the
right to appoint the first ALAC in its entirety already provides to the
Board a significant degree of control on this process. So the five ALAC
delegates to the first NomCom should be chosen by the interim ALAC after its
appointment in Shanghai.

Also, in XI.2.5.b of the proposed new Bylaws, it is stated that the ALAC
will be a Committee entirely appointed by the Board for an indefinite amount
of time, until a future Board's decision will change this situation. Nowhere
in the Bylaws the existence of Regional At Large Organizations, or the other
instruments of public participation and selection of ALAC members that the
ALAC-AG suggested and that the ERC mostly supported in its Second
Implementation Report, are even mentioned. I think that this is extremely
dangerous, both because the new Bylaws do not supply even a tentative date
for the final settlement of the At Large issue, and because they would leave
the final decision about the ALAC structure and selection process completely
open to future discussions, thus not solving the problem and risking to let
the issue arise again in the next years.

I think that it would be a better approach if the new Bylaws devised the
intended final structure of ICANN, whichever the ERC and the Board will
decide it to be, in all its details, rather than leaving potentially
explosive problems like this open and unsettled.

So I think that, between now and the Shanghai meeting, the comma XI.2.5.b of
the proposed new Bylaws should be completely rewritten to describe the final
structure of the ALAC, and that the transitory provision to let the Board
appoint its first instance should be moved to article XX. I - as, I guess,
the rest of the ALAC-AG - am available to work to supply an alternate
wording proposal for that comma in the shortest possible timeframe.

Also, I strongly suggest that any transitory provision should be coupled
with dates for its expiration. The ALAC-AG supplied proposals on tentative
dates and process to establish a "fully operational ALAC" and all the
related structures by the summer-autumn 2003. In any case, I think a safest
approach would be making any interim provisions about the ALAC expire no
later than autumn 2003 unless renewed by a Bylaws amendment.

I really think that the points I am bringing to your attention could make
the difference between a permanent and effective solution to the At Large
historical difficulties, and an endless continuation, perhaps a worsening,
of the current quarrel about public participation in ICANN. This is why I
hope in your positive response.

Regards,
- -- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
- --------> http://bertola.eu.org/ - Archivio FAQ e molto altro... <--------
- --
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 #1455
*************************