Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1485
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, October 23 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1485

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

Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:30:13 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[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 would agree with this Michael - but only insofar as the process can be
effectively managed. WG-B/C were each so large as to be unmanageable. While
there was, in my opinion, a ton of consensus ripe for the picking, the
chairs couldn't effectively direct the participants to the degree necessary
to find the diamonds in the rough (nor should they have been reasonably
expected to). With no raw materials, its impossible to polish the results
satisfactorily. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the
TF/WG/Whatever to ensure that consensus is found and that recommendations
based on the consensus can be reasonably implemented.

There are lessons to be gleaned from these failures, but is anyone seriously
and productively looking?

                       -rwr

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

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

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

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bret Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 8:40 AM
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 10:36:30 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Announcement: AT LARGE FORUM -- ICANN Shanghai

Which ICANN At-Large is this?

How will our Board Members be included in both this and the board meeting 
if they are happening simultaneously?

~k

At 12:05 AM 10/22/2002 -0400, 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 12:51:21 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU wants to wiggle into Internet domain name space

Andrew and all assembly members,

  To many small and medium sized IT businesses, ICANN has been
a seemingly never ending nightmare of large and growing proportions.
Although sometime ago the SBA expressed these concerns in some
detail to the DOC/NTIA they fell of seemingly deaf ears.  Hence
to these small and medium sized IT businesses in the US as well
as outside the US in the telecom and IT industry are failing in
ever growing numbers, partly as a result of ICANN's shenanigans
of various sorts.  Hence also why the DNSO GA members already
voted to Rebid the ICANN contracts which spurred the so called
ICANN Reform effort now underway, and terribly skewed, closed
to participation of any meaningful sort, and captured by the same
small group of IP interests which are loosing legal battles in court
regarding some of many of the regulatory issues that most trouble
and impede small and medium sized business.

  Now the ITU has again decided to try to weigh in with it's
various forms of ilk which it once did back in '98-'99, and
was soundly trounced by large numbers of stakeholders/users
on various points...  Given the ITU's financial woes of late,
similar to the ISOC's this sort of trough for the hogs is to
unfortunately to be expected...

  Ergo, the battles/war continues....

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...
>
>         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

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 13:29:58 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Response to your posting on the NC List

Ross and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> > 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.

  First off here Ross, I don't believe in "Can't".  I tore that page out of my
dictionary long ago.  To go along with this, as an retired USMC officer,
we had a USMC motto: The difficult we do immediately, the impossible
takes just a little bit longer...

> The saying that one that isn't part of the solution
> is part of the problem.

  Good point here, unless the solution IS 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.

  Agreed here.  However that "Consensus" cannot be simply declared, it
must be measured, and have full, open and transparent participation
available to any stakeholder/user that wishes to do so.  This means that
stakeholders/users must be able to openly and transparently participate
in developing the policies as well as vote upon them before any consensus
can be achieved.  And this is definitely NOT what is happening
with ICANN regardless, and now in part because of the "Blueprint
for reform" processes.

>
>
> 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

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 20:28:45 GMT
From: David Farrar <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Your DEMYS Interview

Jonathan,

I have read with interest the two parts of the interview you gave to DEMYS 
which have been published recently.  I congratulate you for being open and 
speaking publicly on how you see issues within ICANN.  

You touched on a number of very important issues which I am hoping you will be 
comfortable to further elaborate on through the GA list to which this e-mail is 
cc'd.  At the end of the day communication is one of our biggest issues in 
making ICANN work.

In Part One you said "As a Board we've come to the conclusion that we can do no 
more than to listen to all of the points of view that are put forward - even 
the ones that might seem more outrageous - we debate them, seek advice from 
outsiders and try to get an international, technical, legal and political 
perspective - and we make a decision and that's the way it is"

However to an outsider the Board appears to vote with the staff recommendation 
99% of the time.  The only occassion I can recall the Board did not is a minor 
issue of an IP rep on a Taskforce.  On organisations I serve on I have never 
come across such a high incidence of acceptance of staff recommendations.  
Around 80 - 90% is more common.  So does ICANN just have staff who are never 
wrong or can you understand why some may feel that the Board doesn't consider 
other points of view enough?

In Part One you also mention you sit on the Board of CIRA which has three 
quarters of the Board elected by what is effectively an at large movement - 
individual Registrants.  Why with your experience with CIRA do you not support 
at large elections for a portion of the ICANN Board when CIRA ha sshown they 
can work?

In Part Two you acknowledge that the styles of some of the ICANN negiotators 
with the ccTLDS diminished the chanes of sucessful agreements.  Why then are 
these negiotators still being used?  They appear to have failed miserably.

You quote one anonymous ccTLD operator as saying they do not want ICANN to 
suceed.  Do you believe this is a representative viewpoint of ccTLDs or do you 
believe the ccTLDs want ICANN to suceed but reject the non negiotable terms 
ICANN keeps placing down?

I absolutely agree with you that negiotation's key sucess is based on 
understanding what is really important to the other party?  What do you think 
is really important to the bulk of the ccTLD community?  Would it help for them 
to state this?

You go on to say that ICANN has never intended to dictate to ccTLDs but with 
all respect this is not reflected in ICANN's actions.  The proposed contracts 
give ICANN unlimited authority to dictate to ccTLDs.  Joe Sims has said that 
open ccTLDs should be dictated to in the same way as gTLDs.  ICANN has refused 
to change contact details for ccTLDs unless they sign a contract.  Lately it 
has refused name server updates without zone file access.  *Everything* about 
ICANN's actions seem to have been about dictating to ccTLDs instead of working 
with them.  

You touch on the point that some ccTLDs are operating independently of their 
Governments.  I agree this is a concern but there is a redelegation process 
that can deal with this as we saw with .au.  However the ccTLDs which are most 
active in the ccTLD constituency almost all have excellent relationships with 
their Goverments such as CENTR, InternetNZ, most of Asia etc.  

You go on in Part II to say you can not think of a single time the Board has 
gone against a real consesus decision.  I'm sorry but that beggars belief if 
you think that.  The list is long.  I am assuming you mean a consensus within a 
Supporting Organisation ratehr than a consesus amongst the Board and/or staff 
which would be a truism.

Off the top of my head I have the following decisions over-turned or amended 
which had met ICANN's definition of consensus within the DNSO.
- - Rejection of changes to Verisign Contract
- - Rejection of WLS
- - .org redelegation policy and process

And the biggest one of all - the unamious reccomendation of the $500,000 ALSC 
which wanted to retain at large board seats after major consultation.

There are several more also.  In fact I can't recall many times when the Board 
has actually voted to support a DNSO consensus decision.  Can you point to even 
three such occassions?

You again reject atlarge elections because you think 2,000 people voting in 
North America is not representative enough?  How then is 20 people in a 
nominating committee any better?  Seriously.  What makes you think the current 
Board are suitable to handpick their sucessors when in the words of your own 
President and echoed by the US Government you have failed in almost all your 
targets of the last two years?

You go on to say you want a system where people like Carl Bildt can be 
handpicked to sit on ICANN Board.  I find this curious as your Board totally 
rejected the recommendatiosn of his ALSC.  The model of the current Board 
effectively handpicking its own sucessors is one used by very few organisations 
now a days.  The most famous one is probably the International Olympic 
Committee.  That has been a prime example of what can happen when you don't 
have accountability back to any wider membership.  So my question is "What 
safeguards exist in ICANN now to deal with a "bad" Board?.  In most 
organisations the members can sack the Board if it goes off the rails.  In 
ICANN all power is vested in the Board.

I want ICANN to suceed but with all due respect if members of the Board 
seriously think that they have never made a single decision which goes against 
a consensus them ICANN is probably doomed.  The US DOC has given a one year 
period in which ICANN has to achieve things rather than just talk about them.  
At present the ccTLDs, the IETF and the RIRs are all backing away.  The staff 
seemed to have shown appalling judgement in managing relationshsips with them 
yet the Board continues to accept all staff recommendations.

Again I congratulate you on doing the interviews and giving us an insight into 
how the Board sees itself as working.  

David
Farrar

- --
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 22:22:05 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Michael Palage's Comments on the Whois Task Force

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0096_01C27A19.739C7640
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello All:

Attached please find a document outlining some of my personal concerns
regarding the Whois Task Force interim report. I hope to have some interim
recommendations drafted by the time I arrive in China.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage

- ------=_NextPart_000_0096_01C27A19.739C7640
Content-Type: application/msword;
	name="whois-task-force-comments1.doc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="whois-task-force-comments1.doc"
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- ------=_NextPart_000_0096_01C27A19.739C7640--

- --
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 #1485
*************************