Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1483
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, October 22 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1483

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:19:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] USG root servers under DDOS attack

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Allan Liska wrote:

> JB> I've been predicting this for years - along with many others.  Another
> JB> good reason why we need multiple roots.
>
> What exactly would stop an attacker from launching the same attacks
> against multiple roots?  Multiple roots would not have provided any
> benefits against this attack.

Non of the roots I'm using seem to be affected ;)

> In addition, I would say this DDoS demonstrates that multiple roots
> are unnecessary.  The vast majority of the Internet had no idea this
> was happening as the root servers still responded to queries, albeit
> slower than usual (but not a perceptible difference).  Given the scale
> of the attack, I would say the root servers held up admirably.

Your wrong there.  The more root clusters there are the more difficult it
is to attack them all.  Root server systems are limted to a max of 13 -
that's an easy target - however if every country and very isp operated
roots the ability to target them become increasingly complex and
difficult.

Also please be advised.  This attack is not well done.  From what I can
see it's an icmp ddos which shows us the attackers have a crude
understanding of howto attack a root server.

I do however expect they will learn in time.

regards
joe baptista

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

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

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:37:21 -0400
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2797C.54263190
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"

Philip,
 
Forgive my posting to the GA list, but I wanted to respond to your note to
the Names Council, but I do not have posting privileges to that list
(although I have cc'd the Secretariat who I would hope would post this note
anyway).
 
I have reproduced your note below this e-mail for the people on this list
that have not seen your note.
 
One of the problems in your logic seems to stem from the fact that you are
assuming that just because a person who serves on a Task Force is from a
particular constituency, that whatever that person states on a call, or
writes in an e-mail, or puts into a document, is the "position of the
constituency."  That may be how it works in other constituencies, but that
is not the way it works in the Registry Constituency.  
 
As a member of the Transfer Task Force, I have repeatedly stated over and
over again that the views I am representing are my own based on my
experience in working with registries and NOT the view of the Registry
Constituency.  In addition, I have stated on numerous occasions that the
Registry Constituency (as well as the other constituencies and the GA) as a
whole needed to review the Task Force Report and that they in fact may
disagree with a lot of what has been said.  They should be allowed to do so
and not be chastised by others for expressing a differing viewpoint than my
own.  
 
Yes, I have kept them informed about what has been going on and yes, at
times I have solicited their help with certain issues -- But not with every
issue and not with every statement that is made on a call or in an e-mail.
The reason the constituency selects a person to serve on the Task Force is
because not every member of the constituency has the time to work on every
issue while the Task Force is drafting a report.  The work needs to be
spread out among the individuals serving in the constituency.  Once the
report is drafted, only then do most of the members of the constituency have
time to address the work of the Task Force.  If they disagree with the Task
Force's recommendations, so be it.  They have every right to.
 
So, please do not argue that the constituencies are "changing their
positions" because they have not.  Constituencies have an opportunity to
comment after the TF Report is released, not necessarily before.  

Thanks.
 
Jeffrey J. Neuman 
 
P.S.  This posting is my own personal posting and is NOT made on behalf of
the constituency.  In addition, to avoid any confusion, it is not made on
behalf of NeuStar, Inc.  I hate having to put these disclaimers, but
unfortunately it appears necessary.

 

*	To: < [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> > 

*	Subject: [council] Legal Breifing Regarding Implementation of New or
Changed Policies 

*	From: "Philip Sheppard" < [email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> > 

*	Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:46:17 +0200 

*	Cc: "Louis Touton" < [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> > 

*	Organization: AIM 

*	References: < [email-masked]
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00142.html> > 

*	Sender: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>  

Bruce,
in view of Louis' posting, it seems to me there is a failure of
communication somewhere. I had understood that the Transfers task force had
produced a set of recommendations based typically on the views and proposals
of registries and registrars themselves, to solve a problem affecting their
customers. Louis' note seems to say, these same groups, or different
individuals from the same groups, are now contradicting their own
recommendations. We need some clarification from the registry and registrars
constituencies please.
 
Philip

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2797C.54263190
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">

<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4919.2200" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=712221503-22102002>Philip,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=712221503-22102002>Forgive my posting 
to the GA list, but I wanted to respond to your note to the Names Council, but I 
do not have posting privileges to that list (although I have cc'd the 
Secretariat who I would hope would post this note anyway).</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=712221503-22102002>I have reproduced 
your note below this e-mail for the people on this list that have not seen your 
note.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=712221503-22102002>One of the problems 
in your logic seems to stem from the fact that you are assuming that just 
because&nbsp;a person who serves on a Task Force is from a particular 
constituency, that whatever that person states on a call, or writes in an 
e-mail, or puts into a document, is the "position of the constituency."&nbsp; 
That may&nbsp;be how it works in other constituencies, but that is not the way 
it works in the Registry Constituency.&nbsp; </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=712221503-22102002>As a member of the 
Transfer Task Force, I have repeatedly stated over and over again that the views 
I am representing are my own based on my experience in working with registries 
and NOT the view of the Registry Constituency.&nbsp; In addition, I have stated 
on numerous occasions that the Registry Constituency (as well as the other 
constituencies and the GA) as a whole needed to review the Task Force Report and 
that they in fact may disagree with a lot of what has been said.&nbsp; They 
should be allowed to do so and not be chastised by others for expressing a 
differing viewpoint than my own.&nbsp; </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=712221503-22102002>Yes, I have kept 
them informed about what has been going on and yes, at times I have solicited 
their help with certain issues -- But not with every issue and not with every 
statement that is made on a call or in an e-mail.&nbsp; The reason the 
constituency selects a person to serve on the Task Force is because not every 
member of the constituency has the time to work on every issue while the Task 
Force is drafting a report.&nbsp; The work needs to be spread out among the 
individuals serving in the constituency.&nbsp; Once the report is drafted, only 
then do most of the members of the constituency have time to address the work of 
the Task Force.&nbsp; If they disagree with the Task Force's recommendations, so 
be it.&nbsp; They have every right to.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=712221503-22102002>So, please do not 
argue that the constituencies are "changing their positions" because 
they&nbsp;have not.&nbsp; Constituencies have an opportunity to comment after 
the TF Report is released, not necessarily&nbsp;before.&nbsp; 
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=712221503-22102002><BR>Thanks.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=712221503-22102002>Jeffrey J. 
Neuman&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=712221503-22102002>P.S.&nbsp; This 
posting is my own personal posting and is NOT made on behalf of the 
constituency.&nbsp; In addition, to avoid any confusion, it is not made on 
behalf of NeuStar, Inc.&nbsp; I hate having to put these disclaimers, but 
unfortunately it appears necessary.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=712221503-22102002>
<UL>
  <LI><EM>To</EM>: &lt;<A 
  href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>&gt; 
  <LI><EM>Subject</EM>: [council] Legal Breifing Regarding Implementation of New 
  or Changed Policies 
  <LI><EM>From</EM>: "Philip Sheppard" &lt;<A 
  href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>&gt; 
  <LI><EM>Date</EM>: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:46:17 +0200 
  <LI><EM>Cc</EM>: "Louis Touton" &lt;<A 
  href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>&gt; 
  <LI><EM>Organization</EM>: AIM 
  <LI><EM>References</EM>: &lt;<A 
  href="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00142.html">[email-masked]</A>&gt; 

  <LI><EM>Sender</EM>: <A 
  href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> </LI></UL><!--X-Head-of-Message-End--><!--X-Head-Body-Sep-Begin--></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Bruce,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>in view of Louis' posting, it seems to me there is a failure 
of communication somewhere. I had understood that the Transfers task force had 
produced a set of recommendations based typically on the views and proposals of 
registries and registrars themselves, to solve a&nbsp;problem affecting their 
customers. </FONT><FONT size=2>Louis' note seems to say, these same groups, or 
different individuals from the same groups, are now contradicting their own 
recommendations. We need some clarification from the registry and registrars 
constituencies please.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Philip</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#800000 
size=3></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2797C.54263190--
- --
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, 22 Oct 2002 00:05:15 -0400
From: "Hans Klein" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Announcement: AT LARGE FORUM -- ICANN Shanghai

* * * Please Forward * * *

====================================
                      AT LARGE FORUM
                Monday, 28 October 2002
                        Time: 2-4 PM
     Shanghai International Convention Center
  To be held alongside the ICANN board meeting

           Sponsored by: ICANNatlarge.org
                  www.ICANNatlarge.org
=====================================

At the occasion of the ICANN Board meeting in China, ICANNatlarge.org is 
sponsoring an At Large Forum.  Participants will examine the user role in 
ICANN, both today and in the future.

Program
=======

1. Dialogue with the At Large Directors
Elected At Large Directors are invited to talk about the user role in ICANN.
Moderator: YJ Park, Governing Panel Member, ICANNatlarge.org

2. Trialogue: Business, Government, Civil Society
Representatives of business, national governments and ccTLDs, and Internet 
users will discuss the evolving governance structure of ICANN.
Moderator: Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Former Governing Panel Member, 
ICANNatlarge.org

3. ICANN Reform: The User Perspective
ICANN's Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC) has defined a significantly 
new role for users. User representation on the board is eliminated, 
replaced with a new advisory body. This session will be a roundtable 
discussion of how users can best preserve their voice in ICANN.
Moderator: Norbert Klein, member, ICANNatlarge.org

For more information, see:   www.ICANNatlarge.org

###

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
For additional commands, e-mail: [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: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:16:09 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List

So here's the game I'd play if I were in charge of the registrars. I'd
divide the 140 odd registrars into three groups, figuring that opposition
from 40+ registrars is certainly the kind of thing that could kill a
"consensus" policy. I'd steer the (G/D)NSO policy process as best I could
with my single task force representative, asking the rest of my constituency
to stay quiet. I'd see what the task force recommended to the NC. Regardless
of the result, I'd figure that I could still make the result better for my
registrar interests. I'd then ask my first block of registrars to weigh in
with their vigorous opposition. We'd negotiate a little more at the NC
level, make the process better for registrars and come up with a new
recommendation for the Board. At this point, my second registrar block of 40
would noisily complain about the result. We'd repeat the negotiations and
make things even better for the Board vote. I'd still have 40 previously
silent registrars to file an independent review if I remained unhappy with
the result. 

That's not the way this is supposed to work, is it? Isn't there an
obligation on impacted parties to come forward with their views as early as
possible, preferably during the task force process via the task force
representative?

          -- Bret

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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 01:06:54 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List

Bret and all assembly members, stakeholders or other interested parties,

Bret Fausett wrote:

> So here's the game I'd play if I were in charge of the registrars. I'd
> divide the 140 odd registrars into three groups, figuring that opposition
> from 40+ registrars is certainly the kind of thing that could kill a
> "consensus" policy. I'd steer the (G/D)NSO policy process as best I could
> with my single task force representative, asking the rest of my constituency
> to stay quiet. I'd see what the task force recommended to the NC. Regardless
> of the result, I'd figure that I could still make the result better for my
> registrar interests. I'd then ask my first block of registrars to weigh in
> with their vigorous opposition. We'd negotiate a little more at the NC
> level, make the process better for registrars and come up with a new
> recommendation for the Board. At this point, my second registrar block of 40
> would noisily complain about the result. We'd repeat the negotiations and
> make things even better for the Board vote. I'd still have 40 previously
> silent registrars to file an independent review if I remained unhappy with
> the result.
>
> That's not the way this is supposed to work, is it? Isn't there an
> obligation on impacted parties to come forward with their views as early as
> possible, preferably during the task force process via the task force
> representative?

  It would be best if the impacted parties, including registrants as well
as Registrars to come forward as soon a possible.  But the timing
really should not matter all that much if and issue is truly open for
debate, and consideration of various positions and considerations.
Also why should any impacted party be required in a truly open
and transparent process and organization, be required to go through
any third party, such as the task force Rep in this case?  Makes little
or no good sense and is divisive in various ways as we have seen
already.

>
>
>           -- 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

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, 22 Oct 2002 02:29:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ITU wants to wiggle into Internet domain name space

http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/021020/72/33wtu.html

"Global Organization Seeks Voice in Internet Addressing System"
Wall Street Journal (10/21/02) P. B4; Delaney, Kevin J.

Last week at the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) organizational
conference, ITU member representatives voted for a resolution calling on
the ITU to take an active role in all "discussions and initiatives"
involving domain names and the domain-name system (DNS). Some view the ITU
vote as a move to step into the uncertainly surrounding domain names and
the DNS, both of which are overseen by ICANN, a group that has been
criticized even by ICANN allies. The ITU is affiliated with the United
Nations, is a global organization, is dominated by international telecom
companies, and must seek member government approval for ITU policies; some
domain name industry observers believe the massive ITU structure would
further marginalize domain name industry and public advocate voices. The
U.S. government as well as the tech community have opposed ITU involvement
as being too cumbersome. In contrast, ICANN ostensibly is free from
government involvement in day-to- day decision-making. The domain name
industry is estimated to be a $2.5 billion industry, and control of a
domain name, such as amazon.com, is vital to the many businesses that own
them. Because governments are involved in the ITU, analysts such as
Syracuse University professor Milton Mueller believe that governments could
use ITU power over DNS issues as "a convenient point of leverage for
enforcement regulation." The disarray at ICANN is leading some to conclude
that private- sector management of the DNS cannot work, while Yale Law
School instructor David Johnson notes that ITU's foundation in governments
would provide "enforceable global regulations." Some experts say ICANN
should be structured to focus on technical issues, while the ITU could be
responsible for public policy; however, others say such issues often overlap.

- --
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, 22 Oct 2002 16:36:41 +1000
From: "McMeikan, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ITU wants to wiggle into Internet domain name space

This has got to be a bad thing, I can almost imagine getting a monthly
domain bill dependent on how many lookups I have had.

Is there anything positive about this?

If ICANN is an experiment gone wrong then maybe it should go back the way it
was before...

	cya,	Andrew...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Baptista [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 2:29 PM
> To: General Assembly of the DNSO
> Subject: [ga] ITU wants to wiggle into Internet domain name space
> 
> 
> 
> http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/021020/72/33wtu.html
> 
> "Global Organization Seeks Voice in Internet Addressing System"
> Wall Street Journal (10/21/02) P. B4; Delaney, Kevin J.
> 
> Last week at the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) 
<snip>

This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only.  It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege.  It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party.  If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender.  Thank you.
- --
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, 22 Oct 2002 09:25:59 +0200
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] ITU wants to wiggle into Internet domain name space

The text posted at Yahoo is not quite identical to the article as published
on page A9 of the 21 October 2002 Wall Street Journal  Europe.

Joe's summary of the the Yahoo version contains, in my personal opinion,
some statements that are not quite right.

As I've pointed out before, the ITU's membership is very large and includes
many different types of companies, so I don't think it is correct to state
that the ITU "is dominated by international telecom companies", but that is
just my personal opinion. 

With respect to the statement "and must seek member government approval for
ITU policies", ITU does operate on the basis of consensus, however, ITU does
not set "policies".  The part of ITU that I work for, ITU-T, the former
CCITT, produces non-binding Recommendations, such as for modems, xDSL, etc.

The quote from Milton Muller is, I believe, placed in an incorrect context,
since I understand that Milton makes the point that whoever (whether
governments or not) controls domain names has a point of leverage for
enforcing regulation. In any case, since ITU-T produces non-binding
Recommendations, I don't quite understand how ITU-T would be able to "take
away someone's domain name".

Also, the quote from David Johnson is not quite the same as what Joe shows
below.

The article as published in the Wall Street Journal Europe quotes David as
saying:

"If they [at the ITU] strongly argue governments and only governments can
make policy, we will likely see an increase in government efforts to
regulate the Internet.  If they surprise skeptics by taking the approach of
saying we're committed to private-sector coordination rather than top-down
regulation, they might turn out to be the friend of competition and
decentralized decision-making".

Since the text of the revised Resolution 102 has already been posted to this
distribution list, I would suggest that people can read it and draw their
own conclusions. 

Best,
Richard

- -----------------------------------------
Richard Hill
Counsellor, ITU-T SG2
International Telecommunication Union
Place des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland
tel: +41 22 730 5887
FAX: +41 22 730 5853
Email: [email-masked]
Study Group 2 email: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Baptista [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 October 2002 8:29
> To: General Assembly of the DNSO
> Subject: [ga] ITU wants to wiggle into Internet domain name space
> 
> 
> 
> http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/021020/72/33wtu.html
> 
> "Global Organization Seeks Voice in Internet Addressing System"
> Wall Street Journal (10/21/02) P. B4; Delaney, Kevin J.
> 
> Last week at the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) 
> organizational
> conference, ITU member representatives voted for a resolution 
> calling on
> the ITU to take an active role in all "discussions and initiatives"
> involving domain names and the domain-name system (DNS). Some 
> view the ITU
> vote as a move to step into the uncertainly surrounding 
> domain names and
> the DNS, both of which are overseen by ICANN, a group that has been
> criticized even by ICANN allies. The ITU is affiliated with the United
> Nations, is a global organization, is dominated by 
> international telecom
> companies, and must seek member government approval for ITU 
> policies; some
> domain name industry observers believe the massive ITU structure would
> further marginalize domain name industry and public advocate 
> voices. The
> U.S. government as well as the tech community have opposed 
> ITU involvement
> as being too cumbersome. In contrast, ICANN ostensibly is free from
> government involvement in day-to- day decision-making. The domain name
> industry is estimated to be a $2.5 billion industry, and control of a
> domain name, such as amazon.com, is vital to the many 
> businesses that own
> them. Because governments are involved in the ITU, analysts such as
> Syracuse University professor Milton Mueller believe that 
> governments could
> use ITU power over DNS issues as "a convenient point of leverage for
> enforcement regulation." The disarray at ICANN is leading 
> some to conclude
> that private- sector management of the DNS cannot work, while Yale Law
> School instructor David Johnson notes that ITU's foundation 
> in governments
> would provide "enforceable global regulations." Some experts say ICANN
> should be structured to focus on technical issues, while the 
> ITU could be
> responsible for public policy; however, others say such 
> issues often overlap.
> 
> --
> 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, 22 Oct 2002 09:50:37 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Transfers: Meeting notice.

FYI

- ----- Forwarded message from Denise Michel <[email-masked]> -----

Meeting Notice
Public Discussion on Transfers of gTLD Domain Names

You are invited to participate in a "Public Discussion on Transfers of gTLD
Domain Names," on Tuesday, 29 October 2002, from 10:30 - 12:30 in the
Shanghai International Convention Center. The Public Discussion is being
held in conjunction with the DNSO General Assembly, Registrars Constituency,
gTLD Registries Constituency, and Name Council Transfers Task Force.

Remote participation is encouraged – join by phone or participate via
e-mail. Please check – http://www.icann.org/shanghai/ – for information on
dialing-in and accessing real-time scribing. When offering comments, please
state who you represent (yourself, a specific constituency, an organization,
etc.) and what role you/they have with regard to transfers (registrant,
registrar, registry, IP interest, etc.) This will allow better
categorizations of the feedback received.

The purpose of the Public Discussion is to educate participants on the
fundamental issues regarding transfers, receive a status report from, and
comment on, the work of the Names Council Task Force on Transfers, and
discuss potential ICANN actions. (There is no ICANN Board action
contemplated on transfers at the Shanghai meeting.)

For your information, background information, an agenda and sample questions
on some of the issues that are expected to be addressed during the Public
Discussion are included below.

If you have any questions, please e-mail the Moderator, Denise Michel at
[email-masked].

Background Information

Background information relevant to the Public Discussion can be found at the
following URLs:

  a.. Registrar Constituency Proposal
  b.. Registrars Constituency background on transfers
  c.. Names Council Transfer Task Force material/lists -- (see #6)
  d.. Names Council Transfer Task Force mailing list archives
  e.. Names Council Transfer Task Force Terms of reference
  f.. ICANN DNSO Transfers Task Force Request for Comments (Status:
Committee Final)
  g.. Verisign Registry Interim Transfer Policy Proposal
  h.. ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement
  i.. ICANN Registry Agreements
  j.. Registrar Accreditation Overview
  k.. Policy on Transfer of Sponsorship of Registrations Between Registrars
(Exhibit B to Appendix F to the .com Registry Agreement; .net and .org
identical)
  l.. General Counsel's Briefing Concerning Implementation of Policies by
Registrars and Registry Operators
Agenda

  10:30 Brief introductions and overviews

    Introductions (Denise Michel, Moderator)

    Overview of existing contracts (Dan Halloran, Chief Registrar Liaison)

    Overview of current environment (Michael Palage, Chair, Registrars
Constituency)

    Update on "Verisign Registry Interim Transfer Policy Proposal" (Chuck
Gomes, Verisign Registry)

  10:55 Presentation of Names Council Transfers Task Force report (Marilyn
Cade and Ross Rader, Task Force chair/member)

  11:15 Open Discussion

  12:20 Conclusion & Next Steps

  12:30 Adjourn

Sample Questions

  a.. The impetus for review of the transfers policy and processes was the
adoption by some Registrars of a default non-acknowledgement (n'ack) policy
in order to protect their customers from unauthorized transfers. Do you
think the Task Force proposal accomplishes this goal? Does the proposed
transfer policy offer a reasonable balance between the following two
objectives: 1) making registrar transfers as easy as possible for
registrants; 2) providing protection against fraudulant or erroneous
transfers?

  b.. How would ICANN's responsibilities change, if at all, under the Task
Force proposal?

  c.. Under the Task Force proposal, what additional responsibilities and
costs would the parties involved bear, and are they reasonable?

  d.. Is the Task Force proposal responsive to all of your constituencies
concerns regarding transfers

  e.. How would the Task Force's proposal affect EPP vs. non-EPP registries?
Large vs. smaller Registrars?

  f.. Will the fact that a Registrar that loses an appeal in the dispute
process pays the costs of the appeal (as proposed by the Task Force)
discourage Registrars from appealing transfers - or do you think it will
deter Registrars from engaging in behavior that discourages the free
portability of domain names?

  g.. Should failure of the losing registrar to respond to the gaining one
(or of the registrant to respond to the losing registrar) lead to
acknowledgement or non-acknowledgement? What does your constituency think
about the Task Force's approach?

  h.. It has been suggested that the proposed ICANN "Ombudsman" be used, in
lieu of a dispute resolution panel/provider or "third party," to facilitate
the resolution of domain name transfer disputes. Is this a feasible idea?

  i.. Under the Task Force proposal, what is the Registrant's
responsibilities and course of action if they feel a transfer is not being
handled properly? How does this differ from current practice?

  j.. Concerns have been raised that Registrants often are not provided with
the necessary information to transfer their domain name or seek help if they
have a transfer problem or question. How does the Task Force proposal
address this concern?

  k.. Under the Task Force proposal, would Registrars have the right to
enter into bilateral agreements with each other that potentially bypass the
full transfer process recommended by the Task Force? Likewise, would
Registries have the right to sign unique (rather than uniform) bilateral
agreements with Registrars that streamline some Registrars' transfers? If
so, how would this potentially affect transfers?

  l.. How would the Task Force proposal be implemented? Do the proposed
changes in the domain name transfer process need to be implemented by a
Board resolution directing staff to provide an amendment for
Registry/Registrar contracts (Aren't these 5 year contracts? Can ICANN
"force" the parties to amend them?) Or would the proposed changes need to be
implemented by voluntary modifications of Registry/Registrar contracts?
(Some have expressed a preference for a "universal transfer policy" rather
than several Registry-specific implementations, while others contend that
individual Registry/Registrar contracts are the most efficient method for
effecting the necessary changes. What is the view of your constituency (how
would each approach potentially effect your constituency)?

- ----- End forwarded message -----

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.INFO/
- --
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, 22 Oct 2002 09:54:39 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA agenda and background materials available

The final agenda and background materials for the DNSO General
Assembly to be held in Shanghai have been posted to the DNSO web
site at <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/ga-shanghai/>.

The GA will take place on Tuesday, October 29, at 08:15.

Agenda
- ------

08:15 	Welcome
08:30	WHOIS Task Force Update
09:15	Workshop on deleted domain name handling
09:45	Panel on IANA's zone file access policy

The following meeting is not formally part of the GA:

10:30	Public Discussion on Transfers of Domain Names

Remote Participation
- --------------------

There will be various opportunities for discussion and public
comment. Remote participants who would like to submit questions or
comments should address them to <[email-masked]>.

Comments are archived at
<http://www.dnso.org/dnsocomments/comments-shanghai/Arc01/>.

- -- 
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: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 01:12:44 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Announcement: AT LARGE FORUM -- ICANN Shanghai

I would sure like to see any written authority for this.

If you create an at-large to promote individuals participation and then a
handful of internal organizers without a mandate from those individuals self
promote then you have nothing.

I have been a voting member of this group from the very beginning of its'
inception and never once have I elected anyone to represent me in an ICANN
meeting.  Wrongful!
e

Hans Klein wrote:

> * * * Please Forward * * *
>
> ====================================
>                       AT LARGE FORUM
>                 Monday, 28 October 2002
>                         Time: 2-4 PM
>      Shanghai International Convention Center
>   To be held alongside the ICANN board meeting
>
>            Sponsored by: ICANNatlarge.org
>                   www.ICANNatlarge.org
> =====================================
>
> At the occasion of the ICANN Board meeting in China, ICANNatlarge.org is
> sponsoring an At Large Forum.  Participants will examine the user role in
> ICANN, both today and in the future.
>
> Program
> =======
>
> 1. Dialogue with the At Large Directors
> Elected At Large Directors are invited to talk about the user role in ICANN.
> Moderator: YJ Park, Governing Panel Member, ICANNatlarge.org
>
> 2. Trialogue: Business, Government, Civil Society
> Representatives of business, national governments and ccTLDs, and Internet
> users will discuss the evolving governance structure of ICANN.
> Moderator: Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Former Governing Panel Member,
> ICANNatlarge.org
>
> 3. ICANN Reform: The User Perspective
> ICANN's Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC) has defined a significantly
> new role for users. User representation on the board is eliminated,
> replaced with a new advisory body. This session will be a roundtable
> discussion of how users can best preserve their voice in ICANN.
> Moderator: Norbert Klein, member, ICANNatlarge.org
>
> For more information, see:   www.ICANNatlarge.org
>
> ###
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email-masked]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [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

- --
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, 22 Oct 2002 09:51:20 +0100
From: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_009D_01C279B0.995429F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

As with the Transfer Task Force and the Whois Task Force, it is not the
fact that the constituency in question does not vent her opinion in
time, every memeber of any TF expects comments to the reports.
 
It is the fact that due process is to comment during the period
allocated towards that goal to the TF and/or the list setup for this
instead of forcing down new rules on the TF's by lobbyng to ICANN
Council.
This (complaint to council) was not done without the approval of the
constituency one assumes and I for one had no warning from my fellow TF
memvers from those constituencies that such a thing would happen, which
seems odd that they do not kow what goes on in their constituency.
 
I respect everyone of the members and accept that sometimes the
constituency will not agree with what has been reached in the TF, but
that is what the comment periods are for, it is called due process, like
ICANN Council should have warned BOTH task-forces of the implications
BEFORE the work started, since they knew policiy changes were asked from
those TF's, hence they should have given their position upfront, then
this would have been perhaps lead along "normal" paths.
 
regards
 
Abel

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: 22 October 2002 04:37
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List

Philip,
 
Forgive my posting to the GA list, but I wanted to respond to your note
to the Names Council, but I do not have posting privileges to that list
(although I have cc'd the Secretariat who I would hope would post this
note anyway).
 
I have reproduced your note below this e-mail for the people on this
list that have not seen your note.
 
One of the problems in your logic seems to stem from the fact that you
are assuming that just because a person who serves on a Task Force is
from a particular constituency, that whatever that person states on a
call, or writes in an e-mail, or puts into a document, is the "position
of the constituency."  That may be how it works in other constituencies,
but that is not the way it works in the Registry Constituency.  
 
As a member of the Transfer Task Force, I have repeatedly stated over
and over again that the views I am representing are my own based on my
experience in working with registries and NOT the view of the Registry
Constituency.  In addition, I have stated on numerous occasions that the
Registry Constituency (as well as the other constituencies and the GA)
as a whole needed to review the Task Force Report and that they in fact
may disagree with a lot of what has been said.  They should be allowed
to do so and not be chastised by others for expressing a differing
viewpoint than my own.  
 
Yes, I have kept them informed about what has been going on and yes, at
times I have solicited their help with certain issues -- But not with
every issue and not with every statement that is made on a call or in an
e-mail.  The reason the constituency selects a person to serve on the
Task Force is because not every member of the constituency has the time
to work on every issue while the Task Force is drafting a report.  The
work needs to be spread out among the individuals serving in the
constituency.  Once the report is drafted, only then do most of the
members of the constituency have time to address the work of the Task
Force.  If they disagree with the Task Force's recommendations, so be
it.  They have every right to.
 
So, please do not argue that the constituencies are "changing their
positions" because they have not.  Constituencies have an opportunity to
comment after the TF Report is released, not necessarily before.  

Thanks.
 
Jeffrey J. Neuman 
 
P.S.  This posting is my own personal posting and is NOT made on behalf
of the constituency.  In addition, to avoid any confusion, it is not
made on behalf of NeuStar, Inc.  I hate having to put these disclaimers,
but unfortunately it appears necessary.

 

*	To: <[email-masked]> 

*	Subject: [council] Legal Breifing Regarding Implementation of
New or Changed Policies 

*	From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]> 

*	Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:46:17 +0200 

*	Cc: "Louis Touton" <[email-masked]> 

*	Organization: AIM 

*	References: <[email-masked]
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00142.html> > 

*	Sender: [email-masked] 

Bruce,
in view of Louis' posting, it seems to me there is a failure of
communication somewhere. I had understood that the Transfers task force
had produced a set of recommendations based typically on the views and
proposals of registries and registrars themselves, to solve a problem
affecting their customers. Louis' note seems to say, these same groups,
or different individuals from the same groups, are now contradicting
their own recommendations. We need some clarification from the registry
and registrars constituencies please.
 
Philip

- ------=_NextPart_000_009D_01C279B0.995429F0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>

<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D750284108-22102002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>As=20
with the Transfer Task Force and the Whois Task Force, it is not the =
fact that=20
the constituency in question does not vent her opinion in time, every =
memeber of=20
any TF expects comments to the reports.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D750284108-22102002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D750284108-22102002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>It is=20
the fact that due process is to comment during the period allocated =
towards that=20
goal to the TF and/or the list setup for this instead of forcing down =
new rules=20
on the TF's by lobbyng to ICANN Council.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D750284108-22102002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>This&nbsp;(complaint to council)&nbsp;was not done without the =
approval=20
of the constituency one assumes and I for one had no warning from my =
fellow TF=20
memvers from those constituencies that such a thing would happen, which =
seems=20
odd that they do not kow what goes on in their =
constituency.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D750284108-22102002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D750284108-22102002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>I=20
respect everyone of the members and accept that sometimes the =
constituency will=20
not agree with what has been reached in the TF, but that is what the =
comment=20
periods are for, it is called due process, like ICANN Council should =
have warned=20
BOTH task-forces of the implications BEFORE the work started, since they =
knew=20
policiy changes were asked from those TF's, hence they should have given =
their=20
position upfront, then this would have been perhaps lead along "normal"=20
paths.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D750284108-22102002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D750284108-22102002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>regards</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D750284108-22102002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D750284108-22102002><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>Abel</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV></DIV>
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr =
align=3Dleft><FONT=20
  face=3DTahoma size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20
  [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] <B>On Behalf Of =

  </B>Neuman, Jeff<BR><B>Sent:</B> 22 October 2002 04:37<BR><B>To:</B>=20
  [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';=20
  [email-masked]'<BR><B>Cc:</B> [email-masked]';=20
  [email-masked]'<BR><B>Subject:</B> [ga] Response to your posting on the =
NC=20
  List<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D712221503-22102002>Philip,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D712221503-22102002>Forgive my posting=20
  to the GA list, but I wanted to respond to your note to the Names =
Council, but=20
  I do not have posting privileges to that list (although I have cc'd =
the=20
  Secretariat who I would hope would post this note =
anyway).</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D712221503-22102002>I =
have reproduced=20
  your note below this e-mail for the people on this list that have not =
seen=20
  your note.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D712221503-22102002>One =
of the=20
  problems in your logic seems to stem from the fact that you are =
assuming that=20
  just because&nbsp;a person who serves on a Task Force is from a =
particular=20
  constituency, that whatever that person states on a call, or writes in =
an=20
  e-mail, or puts into a document, is the "position of the =
constituency."&nbsp;=20
  That may&nbsp;be how it works in other constituencies, but that is not =
the way=20
  it works in the Registry Constituency.&nbsp; </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D712221503-22102002>As a =
member of the=20
  Transfer Task Force, I have repeatedly stated over and over again that =
the=20
  views I am representing are my own based on my experience in working =
with=20
  registries and NOT the view of the Registry Constituency.&nbsp; In =
addition, I=20
  have stated on numerous occasions that the Registry Constituency (as =
well as=20
  the other constituencies and the GA) as a whole needed to review the =
Task=20
  Force Report and that they in fact may disagree with a lot of what has =
been=20
  said.&nbsp; They should be allowed to do so and not be chastised by =
others for=20
  expressing a differing viewpoint than my own.&nbsp; =
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D712221503-22102002>Yes, =
I have kept=20
  them informed about what has been going on and yes, at times I have =
solicited=20
  their help with certain issues -- But not with every issue and not =
with every=20
  statement that is made on a call or in an e-mail.&nbsp; The reason the =

  constituency selects a person to serve on the Task Force is because =
not every=20
  member of the constituency has the time to work on every issue while =
the Task=20
  Force is drafting a report.&nbsp; The work needs to be spread out =
among the=20
  individuals serving in the constituency.&nbsp; Once the report is =
drafted,=20
  only then do most of the members of the constituency have time to =
address the=20
  work of the Task Force.&nbsp; If they disagree with the Task Force's=20
  recommendations, so be it.&nbsp; They have every right =
to.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D712221503-22102002>So, =
please do not=20
  argue that the constituencies are "changing their positions" because=20
  they&nbsp;have not.&nbsp; Constituencies have an opportunity to =
comment after=20
  the TF Report is released, not necessarily&nbsp;before.&nbsp;=20
  </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D712221503-22102002><BR>Thanks.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D712221503-22102002>Jeffrey J.=20
  Neuman&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D712221503-22102002>P.S.&nbsp; This=20
  posting is my own personal posting and is NOT made on behalf of the=20
  constituency.&nbsp; In addition, to avoid any confusion, it is not =
made on=20
  behalf of NeuStar, Inc.&nbsp; I hate having to put these disclaimers, =
but=20
  unfortunately it appears necessary.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D712221503-22102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D712221503-22102002>
  <UL>
    <LI><EM>To</EM>: &lt;<A=20
    href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>&gt;=20
    <LI><EM>Subject</EM>: [council] Legal Breifing Regarding =
Implementation of=20
    New or Changed Policies=20
    <LI><EM>From</EM>: "Philip Sheppard" &lt;<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>&gt;=20
    <LI><EM>Date</EM>: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:46:17 +0200=20
    <LI><EM>Cc</EM>: "Louis Touton" &lt;<A=20
    href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>&gt;=20
    <LI><EM>Organization</EM>: AIM=20
    <LI><EM>References</EM>: &lt;<A=20
    =
href=3D"http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00142.html">3DB30=
[email-masked]</A>&gt;=20

    <LI><EM>Sender</EM>: <A=20
    href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> =
</LI></UL><!--X-Head-of-Message-End--><!--X-Head-Body-Sep-Begin--></SPAN>=
</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Bruce,</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2>in view of Louis' posting, it seems to me there is =
a failure=20
  of communication somewhere. I had understood that the Transfers task =
force had=20
  produced a set of recommendations based typically on the views and =
proposals=20
  of registries and registrars themselves, to solve a&nbsp;problem =
affecting=20
  their customers. </FONT><FONT size=3D2>Louis' note seems to say, these =
same=20
  groups, or different individuals from the same groups, are now =
contradicting=20
  their own recommendations. We need some clarification from the =
registry and=20
  registrars constituencies please.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip</FONT></DIV></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New" color=3D#800000=20
size=3D3></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_009D_01C279B0.995429F0--

- --
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 #1483
*************************