Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1484
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, October 22 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1484

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

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:13:29 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA agenda and background materials available

At 22.10.2002 09:54, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>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/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-shanghai/Arc01/>

[Link corrected. /// 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: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 06:52:18 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List

Abel writes:  <<ICANN Council should have warned BOTH task-forces of the 
implications BEFORE the work started, since they knew policy 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.>>

Actually, ICANN staff was formally requested to provide such support almost 
12 months ago through the unanimous resolution passed by the Names Council at 
Marina del Rey:  “That the NC shows its support for the Transfer Task Force 
and the importance of its work. The NC requests ICANN staff to assist the 
task force in any legal definitions and the identification of any contract 
modifications that may be needed."

- --
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 13:31:39 +0200
From: Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 12:44:48PM +0200, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin took time to write:
> On 00:00 19/10/02, Ross Wm. Rader said:
> >This might just be the most ridiculous line of reasoning that I've seen 
> >for a long time. Either that or a very poor attempt at fear-mongering. 
> >Which is it?
> 
> Dear Ross,
> I just computed that I personnally paid more than $ 70.000 to Verisign 
> those last years to support common interest projects (this is personnal 
> matters but I trust you enough to disclose details to you if you so wish, 
> and being in that trade you will understand quickly). This represents 
> roughly 3000 DNs for various stages societal projects for France, Europe 

You are free to choose whatever supplier you want... and maybe not
the cheapest one. Do not blame others or the market for that.
If you wish to pay ~$23 (from your data) per domain name, it is your
choice.

> and developping countries. Some I gave up due to that cost. And I have good 
> rates.

$23 for a domain name is a good rate ?

> You may understand that I fully share Elisabeth's feelings. But I am 
> interested in your justification of that $ 70.000 out of my family pocket. 
> What is it, if not an US tax? Loot?

Bad investments/choices ?

Patrick Mevzek.
- --
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 08:40:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List

Why isn't the answer to go back to the concept of open Working Groups?
If honestly administered(*) then no one can say they were excluded, and
this gamesmanship won't be credible.  Of course, the price is that
membership won't be manipulable by the people trying to wire the results,
but you can't have everything.

(*) I know from my exclusion from one that this isn't inevitable, but
maybe we've learned something...

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, 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?
> 
>           -- Bret
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                      -->It's very hot here.<--

- --
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 07:55:43 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ITU wants to wiggle into Internet domain name space

At 4:36 PM +1000 10/22/02, McMeikan, Andrew wrote:
>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...

The chief reason ICANN's gone bad is that it was allowed to be captured and
controlled by certain power mongers right at the beginning (with help from
some core people who are now being justly rewarded).

I mean, if you're going to run an organisation with a TRULY bottom-up
process, you don't install an ex-Navy officer as the CEO. Navy boys ignore
squeals from the ranks and only take orders from ABOVE. That's should have
been a BIG CLUE right from the beginning.

Of course, now they're saying the "bottom-up" failed, but it never got a
look-in.

Time to re-convene the BWG?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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, 22 Oct 2002 09:57:08 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List

Excellent idea Michael.

There were no limitations on participation when I chaired Working Group B.
We had over 100 members and approximately 50-70 people that posted
regularly. And guess what, the only thing Working Group B found consensus on
was that there should additional safeguards for trademark owners during the
roll-out of a new TLD. Although the Sunrise received a lot of support from
the Registrar and IP community, it did not reach a consensus level among all
participants. So guess what happened, the ICANN Board allowed the market
forces to work and we had the Sunrise (Afilias) and the IP Claim process
(NeuLevel). Although each had their positives and negatives, it was what
should happen on complex issues instead of artificial consensus. This is how
contracting parties are able to distinguish their services and give
consumers choice.

Regarding Bret's earlier posting. As I previously stated there is no
obligation for contracting parties to participate in the ICANN process. I
actually tried to get ICANN to mandate registrars to join the constituency.
I was told participation in the (G/D)NSO is totally voluntary. Although I
would say most contracting parties remain supportive of the principles ICANN
was founded on, they are just turning off to the political BS and focusing
on running there businesses. When they see a proposed "policy" that might
detrimentally impact their business or negatively impact their customers
they will speak up and rely on the safeguards contained in their contracts.

With regard to Bret's divide and concur scenario, sounds nice in fiction.
However, except for a small handful of registrars, most registrars are to
busy trying to run a business and make a living to take time and play in the
(G/D)NSO policy sandbox.

Mike

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Michael
Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 8:40 AM
To: Bret Fausett
Cc: Neuman, Jeff; [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List

Why isn't the answer to go back to the concept of open Working Groups?
If honestly administered(*) then no one can say they were excluded, and
this gamesmanship won't be credible.  Of course, the price is that
membership won't be manipulable by the people trying to wire the results,
but you can't have everything.

(*) I know from my exclusion from one that this isn't inevitable, but
maybe we've learned something...

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, 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?
>
>           -- Bret
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

- --
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                      -->It's very hot here.<--

- --
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 09:05:01 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing

Monday, October 21, 2002, 11:29:33 PM, Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
JW> Don and all assembly members,

JW> Don Brown wrote:
>> Jeff,
>>
>> How can the Registrars be a monopoly, just because they all signed
>> (almost) the same contract with ICANN? That simply doesn't compute or
>> make any sense at all to me.

JW>   As oen that is in the registrar business with ICANN, I can see
JW> why you don't understand or don't wish to.  Hence of course
JW> it doesn't "Compute" to you, Don.   The RRP says it all.

Wrong.  We are not a Registrar and we certainly do No business with
ICANN.

>> There is no price fixing that I can see. In fact, as far as I can
>> tell, a consumer can buy a domain name registration for the sum of
>> about $8 to about $35 for one year, depending upon Registrar; maybe
>> lower/higher, too.

JW>   This is not the point at all.  The point is best put in a question
JW> format for simplicity.  Can a potential registrant register a DN
JW> from a registrar that is not an accredited registrar of ICANN
JW> for .com, .net, .org, ect., ect?  No they cannot.  Hence
JW> they are relegated to a monopolistic framework for registering
JW> a DN in those name spaces.

If that is problematic for you, then automobile dealers, furniture
dealers and similar groups must keep you up all night.  It is not
monopolistic to market through authorized or accredited dealers or
wholesalers - it is common, in fact.

>> The Registrars are innovative and have introduced additional value.
>> Let's also not forget who had a "wls" before that term became an
>> acronym indigenous to Snap and VeriSign.  Let's also not forget how
>> ICANN gave Snap and VeriSign that monopoly, as well.  That's a
>> monopoly, Jeff - there is No Consumer Choice.
>>
>> No Jeff, many times you are on-point with criticism, but you really
>> missed the mark miserably by calling the Registrars a monopoly.  You
>> and I can be wrong sometimes, though.  We can agree on that, for sure.
>>
>> The real problem is that ICANN is corrupt.  Let's cut to the meat of
>> the issue.  Everyone talks around it and complains around it.  I said
>> it.
>>
>> You can play fair, but you shouldn't expect a chance of winning or
>> even a chance at fairness or even reasonable equity, when the other
>> party cheats and pulls all the strings. It's like going to Las Vegas -
>> they pay for all those lights, somehow (that was a joke - with ICANN
>> it is worse than that and I don't think that any of us are laughing
>> about it, either).
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Monday, October 21, 2002, 8:39:07 PM, Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> JW> Michael and all assembly members,
>>
>> JW>   Make sure you ware some insulated gloves when running around in
>> JW> a field during a lightening storm swinging a golf club, will ya!  >;)
>> JW> I also hope you get the point of this retort also Michael...  ???
>>
>> JW>   Your argument below is and interesting one, but substantially misses
>> JW> the point of Eric's response.  ALL ICANN registrars are under
>> JW> RRP contract agreement with certain provisions, therefore they
>> JW> are collectively a monopolist set of registrars.  Hence I think
>> JW> a good bit of Eric's indirect point is sophistry form...  As such
>> JW> the registrant is yet again in a lock-in situation which in and of itself
>> JW> is an aberration of the free market system that thwarts free enterprise
>> JW> in the Domain Name industry/game that is less than advantageous
>> JW> to the registrant.
>>
>> JW> Michael D. Palage wrote:
>>
>> >> Eric:
>> >>
>> >> I think this thread provides a classic example of why contracting parties
>> >> tend to avoid the noise of ICANN Policy efforts. However, since I never shy
>> >> away from running around in an open field during a lighting storm swinging a
>> >> golf club, let me continue.
>> >>
>> >> I submit that the divergent viewpoints of registries and registrars are self
>> >> evident that no consensus exists on some of these complex issues.
>> >> Additionally, if in fact there was a monopoly as you allege, the registries
>> >> and registrars would be in lock step regarding these proposals.
>> >>
>> >> I never said that people and businesses that register and use domain names
>> >> are not important. They in fact have the ultimate responsibility of speaking
>> >> with their wallet in choosing their registrar of record and what tld they
>> >> register in.
>> >>
>> >> Mike
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> >> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:29 PM
>> >> To: Michael D. Palage
>> >> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>> >> Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing
>> >>
>> >> Damn fine show here,
>> >> In our work we say that "Marketing is education, and education is Marketing"
>> >> I feel educated and marketed by this fine explanation of Registrars
>> >> workings.
>> >>
>> >> The use of the term advocate was most educational.  We here in the GA only
>> >> have representatives.
>> >> How come they get advocates?  I am glad to see that Louis has a direct line
>> >> with registrars and no line what so ever with users.  Makes sense.
>> >> Unlike these highly important registrars and registries we will continue to
>> >> have direct communication with users. And we will reserve the time necessary
>> >> to provide service through effective communication skills.
>> >> It is quite funny that the people who actually pay the money to the company
>> >> are not considered important in the running of the business.  Go Figure!
>> >> Can you spell  M-O-N-O-P-O-L-I-E-S???
>> >> e
>> >>
>> >> "Michael D. Palage" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Danny:
>> >> >
>> >> > Not to sound like an attorney, but there is no contractual requirement
>> >> that registrars or registries participate in the DNSO, or its processes.
>> >> Regardless of the level of participation by either registrars or registries,
>> >> such action or inaction does not waive the contractual rights contained in
>> >> their contracts. Although I will work on a more detailed response to your
>> >> questions below during my flight to China, I wanted to give you some quick
>> >> answers.
>> >> >
>> >> > Question 1: The Registrar Constituency hase had a sort of revolving door
>> >> of representation in the Whois task force. Although Paul Kane was an initial
>> >> registrar advocate we have had several representatives serving on this Task
>> >> Force: Philip, Ken and Tim. Although some people may find this hard to
>> >> believe, but registrars do have businesses to run and they are not always
>> >> able to devote the necessary resources to play in the DNSO's policy sandbox
>> >> that other people seem to have. I think Ross has been doing a good job of
>> >> advocating the registrar position on the Transfer's Task Force. However, as
>> >> I previously noted as the final recommendations become clearer there is a
>> >> growing number of registrars expressing concern about certain
>> >> recommendations. I do not believe that the registrars nor the registries are
>> >> trying to force the Task Force back to square one. All I believe they are
>> >> trying to do is ensure that their contractual safeguards are preserved.
>> >> >
>> >> > Question 2: The Executive Committee delegates the responsibilities of
>> >> representing the registrars viewpoints to specific representatives. They
>> >> periodically report to the constituency and the executive committee on their
>> >> progress. When a final report is available it is put forth to the
>> >> constituency for a vote. Unlike other constituencies that fail to delegate
>> >> responsibilities to other members, I do not specifically know what has or
>> >> has not been stated to the Task Forces. All I know is what has been
>> >> communicated to me via email, in person meetings, teleconferences, etc. Not
>> >> all communication within the registrar constituency occurs on the listserv.
>> >> >
>> >> > Question 3: I cannot say with certainty why registrar come to me. Maybe
>> >> because I tend to listen and recommend a reasonable and prudent course of
>> >> action based upon the facts and the binding contracts. Registrars and
>> >> registries may chose to contact Louis because he is the general counsel of
>> >> ICANN and registrars and registries have contracts with ICANN. Speaking for
>> >> myself, I contacted Steve Metalitz and raised a number of concerns regarding
>> >> some of the initial recommendations in an earlier Whois draft report. This
>> >> was followed up with some discussions with my registry counterparts. Based
>> >> upon this discussion I am writing a formal response to the Whois Task Force
>> >> showing what I believe is serious fundamental flaws in the report, as well
>> >> as potential recommendations for moving forward with a solution to the
>> >> problem.
>> >> >
>> >> > I guess one of the biggest reasons why people choose not to actively
>> >> participate in the DNSO processes is that there is so much noise on the task
>> >> force and mailing lists, that they prefer to sit back and rely upon the
>> >> contracts they entered into in good faith. The same contracts that allow
>> >> them to employ people, pay rent and taxes, etc. I know this is definitely
>> >> not the answer you were looking for but it is part of the reality we live
>> >> in.
>> >> >
>> >> > Best regards,
>> >> >
>> >> > Mike
>> >> >
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> >> > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 10:27 AM
>> >> > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>> >> > Cc: [email-masked]
>> >> > Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing
>> >> >
>> >> > Michael,
>> >> >
>> >> > You are doubtless aware that I hold no particular fondness for the Task
>> >> Force
>> >> > concept which serves to limit participation rather than encouraging
>> >> > participation and substantive contributions.  We again now find ourselves
>> >> at
>> >> > a point where after initial recommendations have been made, those that
>> >> > haven't had a chance to participate in the policy development process now
>> >> > take issue with the recommendations studiously developed by their peers
>> >> > (bringing us back to square one).
>> >> >
>> >> > While you have called for the rejection of the WHOIS Task Force interim
>> >> > recommendations deeming them to be inconsistent with ICANN’s existing
>> >> > contractual obligations, a violation of ICANN’s mission and core values,
>> >> in
>> >> > conflict with existing technical and market realities, and constituting a
>> >> > treat to the stability of the Internet, I would note that the registrar
>> >> > constituency does indeed have a representative assigned to the WHOIS Task
>> >> > Force, Ken Stubbs, and that I am not aware of any such issues being raised
>> >> by
>> >> > Ken on the Task Force Discussion List.
>> >> >
>> >> > This raises the following questions:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1.  Why aren't members of the registrar constituency following the policy
>> >> > development process within the TF, interacting with their
>> >> > representative-of-record on the Task Force, and instructing him to post
>> >> their
>> >> > comments to the list for consideration by other stakeholders prior to the
>> >> > publication of an Interim Report?
>> >> > 2.  Why hasn't your representative raised such issues for discussion on
>> >> the
>> >> > TF list if they indeed are of the magnitude that you describe and are of
>> >> such
>> >> > great concern to the constituency?
>> >> > 3.  Why do your members find it necessary to go straight to either
>> >> yourself
>> >> > or to ICANN staff with their complaints and concerns rather than going to
>> >> > their TF representative so that issues might be addressed in mutual
>> >> > consultation prior to arriving at what is now the Interim Report stage?
>> >> >
>> >> > What I am seeing is more of an attempt to derail a process than to
>> >> cooperate
>> >> > within the process itself.  Constantly going back to square one serves
>> >> > nobody's interests.  If the process itself is flawed, then perhaps we need
>> >> to
>> >> > take another hard look at the process and consider appropriate changes
>> >> before
>> >> > we again head down this profitless road, but acting to do no more than
>> >> trash
>> >> > the work of others that have diligently cooperated for well over a year to
>> >> > arrive at recommendations is not the best possible way forward.
>> >> >
>> >> > Best regards,
>> >> > Danny
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> >> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>> >> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> >> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> >> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>> >> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> >> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>>
>> JW> Regards,
>> JW> --
>> JW> Jeffrey A. Williams
>> JW> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
>> JW> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>> JW> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>> JW> E-Mail [email-masked]
>> JW> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
>> JW> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>>
>> JW> --
>> JW> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> JW> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>> JW> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> JW> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>>
>> ----
>> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
>> [email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
>> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
>> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
>> ----

JW> Regards,

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

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 16:31:16 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List

On 2002-10-22 09:57:08 -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> ... political BS ...

Is this your latest sport?  Insulting as many participants in ICANN  
as you can?

(I don't say that there is no political BS around, but...)

- -- 
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 17:04:03 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Shanghai meeting room details

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

The Shanghai meeting room details can be found at:
http://www.dnso.org/200210.Shanghai.html

Please note that the time for the GA meeting on Tuesday, October 29, has
changed to:
8:15 and not 8:00 as noted in the table.

Thank you,
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: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 08:05:14 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List

Well this sounds pretty realistic.
It is good to remember that ICANN is a forum.  All of its' technical functions
are just that.  Either they offer the best product or cajole the most control or
we go elsewhere.
I believe that world wide they are running at a losing pace.  They maybe still
ahead but not by much.
I do not believe ICANN was involved with the contracting for dotUS. EU looks
enticing and China is a wild card. This LACNIC will be more important than many
think. Some argue pricing and I disagree it is brandability that makes a name
worth 5k USD.  Anyone can get on line that is not an issue anymore, anyone can
piggyback a website/page, four kids going together with milk money can afford
it.

So I think Mssr. Palage that you may rethink this position with regard to "only
when we have time" will we participate.  I do not know who has the ace up the
sleeve but ICANN is now playing a losing hand.
Don't get me wrong I love power politics and free enterprise, we just must
recognize that we are not playing a child's game of fish but a dangerous game of
Poker, with real stakes.  How many ISPs exist today that existed in 1998?  Run
through that list of Registrars and try to ring all of them up on the telly -
not going to happen.
Our company is not a registrar and is not a registry and is not an Isp but we
fulfil all of these functions and watch ICANN like a hawk.

Sincerely,
Eric Dierker
Hi-Tek

"Michael D. Palage" wrote:

> Excellent idea Michael.
>
> There were no limitations on participation when I chaired Working Group B.
> We had over 100 members and approximately 50-70 people that posted
> regularly. And guess what, the only thing Working Group B found consensus on
> was that there should additional safeguards for trademark owners during the
> roll-out of a new TLD. Although the Sunrise received a lot of support from
> the Registrar and IP community, it did not reach a consensus level among all
> participants. So guess what happened, the ICANN Board allowed the market
> forces to work and we had the Sunrise (Afilias) and the IP Claim process
> (NeuLevel). Although each had their positives and negatives, it was what
> should happen on complex issues instead of artificial consensus. This is how
> contracting parties are able to distinguish their services and give
> consumers choice.
>
> Regarding Bret's earlier posting. As I previously stated there is no
> obligation for contracting parties to participate in the ICANN process. I
> actually tried to get ICANN to mandate registrars to join the constituency.
> I was told participation in the (G/D)NSO is totally voluntary. Although I
> would say most contracting parties remain supportive of the principles ICANN
> was founded on, they are just turning off to the political BS and focusing
> on running there businesses. When they see a proposed "policy" that might
> detrimentally impact their business or negatively impact their customers
> they will speak up and rely on the safeguards contained in their contracts.
>
> With regard to Bret's divide and concur scenario, sounds nice in fiction.
> However, except for a small handful of registrars, most registrars are to
> busy trying to run a business and make a living to take time and play in the
> (G/D)NSO policy sandbox.
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Michael
> Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 8:40 AM
> To: Bret Fausett
> Cc: Neuman, Jeff; [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
> [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
> Subject: Re: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List
>
> Why isn't the answer to go back to the concept of open Working Groups?
> If honestly administered(*) then no one can say they were excluded, and
> this gamesmanship won't be credible.  Of course, the price is that
> membership won't be manipulable by the people trying to wire the results,
> but you can't have everything.
>
> (*) I know from my exclusion from one that this isn't inevitable, but
> maybe we've learned something...
>
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, 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?
> >
> >           -- Bret
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                       -->It's very hot here.<--
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:10:50 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List

No, I am insulting the current broken process and a select few individuals
that manipulate it.

My objective is simple, open up competition at every level of the DNS to
allow companies to kick start this industry with new ideas and innovations.
I do not view this as a sport, but as a business. It is too bad that so many
other people do not have this perspective.

Mike

- -----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 10:31 AM
To: Michael D. Palage
Cc: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law; Bret Fausett; Neuman,
Jeff; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List

On 2002-10-22 09:57:08 -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> ... political BS ...

Is this your latest sport?  Insulting as many participants in ICANN
as you can?

(I don't say that there is no political BS around, but...)

- --
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 11:25:54 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List

> I was told participation in the (G/D)NSO is totally voluntary. Although I
> would say most contracting parties remain supportive of the principles
ICANN
> was founded on, they are just turning off to the political BS and focusing
> on running there businesses. When they see a proposed "policy" that might
> detrimentally impact their business or negatively impact their customers
> they will speak up and rely on the safeguards contained in their
contracts.

But both can't be had. The saying that one that isn't part of the solution
is part of the problem. And truth be told, those contracting parties that
don't participate in the *NSO don't get special treatment just because they
don't participate, a stakeholder is a stakeholder, regardless of their
membership status (in the *NSO or otherwise). If the majority of registrars
are choosing to not to participate in the *NSO, doesn't that indicate a more
specific failure somewhere else? ICANN's political dynamic isn't the root of
all evil, nor is market competition the magic bullet. Contracted parties
have an obligation to implement the policies specified in our contracts and
a right to participate in the development of the policy that those contracts
contain - there are ways to make changes to those policies without unanimous
consent. This is the essence of the consensus policy development process.

I can't be much more explicit than this folks; let's stop talking about the
dynamic and the personalities, let's set aside the questions of how
representative the opinions of others actually are and really, lets stop
acting like children. There are serious problems that need addressing here.
There will always be those that choose to hold their breathe instead of
constructively participating in resolution. Lets ignore that and move on.
Unanimous consent isn't necessary, general agreement on specific solutions
is.

Less rhetoric and more work is required. When was the last time that any of
you reading this tabled a solid proposal for comments? Those of you that can
remember should be busily writing another one (but you have my gratitude).
Those of you that can't remember have some work to do.

If we can't even collectively take a small step like this, then perhaps we
should be packing up our toys and going home.

                       -rwr

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

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

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

- --
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 #1484
*************************