Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1545
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Sunday, January 5 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1545

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 05:03:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_[ga]_Re:_Budget_Input?=

This message while totally sensible in the real world causes some major 
problems in the not so real world of the 501c3 US tax status and the 
California non-profit corporation concepts.
Payment for services is a strange beast that must only be used sparingly by 
ICANN.
At this point this type of revenue generation appears to be all that is left 
to ICANN.  I have been told that this disqualifies ICANN from the status it 
requires from the DoC, and that ICANN is in default with the IRS.
I personally could not find an exemption/exception.
I further understand that the BoD of ICANN (that is without a membership) is 
personally responsible for tax consequences. If they run like a private 
corporation then that is what it is de facto. A board with out 
stockholders/membership/stakeholders and without elections is not a board no 
matter how fancy you want to word it.

No Peter, I would rethink giving any money to aid and abet a fraud.

e

> On 23 Dec 2002 at 17:20, M. Stuart Lynn wrote:
> 
>> I am writing to seek any thoughts, comments, suggestions that the
>> ccTLD constituency might have regarding the ICANN 2003-2004 budget
>> that commences July 1, 2003. This request is distinct from my separate
>> request to you for ccTLD nominations to the Budget Advisory Group.
>> 
> Stuart,
> this is a personal response, as the ccTLD adcom has yet to meet in the 
> New Year, and the pressure of work prevented the last call, scheduled 
> during the countdown to summer vacations, Xmas et al.
> 
> First, I think it is important to note that there is no longer a cctld 
> constituency.The ccTLDs in Shanghai completed the long- promised 
> withdrawal from it, leaving the legal structure an unpopulated husk.
> 
> There is no such constituency in the reformed GNSO.
> 
> The ctlds expect there to be place for them in the reformed ICANN, 
> namely a ccSO, but it is not clear yet that the present reform process
> is  going to result in a structure which will be so attractive to
> cctlds that they  will join up in any significant numbers.
> 
> The primary obstacle remains likely to be any further attempts by ICANN
>  to institute new, top down control over the "sovereign" cctlds through
> the  PDP and  Contracts, fuelled by the recollection of misuses by
> ICANN of  its stewardship of the IANA function.
> 
> I am hopeful that an arrangement will be reached on these issues, and 
> turn to specific issues of the  Budget.
> 
> It would be helpful to have your official and formal reaction to the
> cctlds'  Bucharest statement on this matter : to date I am not aware of
> any  response from you.
> 
> The statement is at www.wwtld.org/documents, and reads in part:
> 
> "7     The ccTLDs are committed to funding those overheads of the 
> corporation directly related
>     to ccTLD activities, for example the IANA services, and in addition
>     are 
> willing to make a
>     fair contribution to ICANN for its more general overheads. While
>     the 
> level of funding is
>     not a requisite part of the re-structuring debate, we make the
>     following 
> points:
>  
>     7.1 The ccTLDs are resolved that there should be no cross-subsidy
>     of 
> non-ccTLD-related
>     expenditure by ccTLD income as we have already engaged in time-
> consuming and costly
>     local policy processes.
>      
>     7.2 When the Budget is approved by the ccSO, the ccTLDs will 
> guarantee funding the
>     contribution agreed.
>  
>     7.3 For the ccSO to approve those portions of the budget relating
>     to 
> ccTLD matters, it will
>     require that its delegates or representatives take part in the
>     Budget 
> process and are able to
>     review details of expenditure (which include the allocation and the
>     
> basis of the allocation
>     of the global ccTLD contribution) early in the budget process. That
>     
> information is,
>     currently, not provided.
>  
>    7.4 The ccSO will determine the allocation of the global
>    contribution 
> among its members."
>  
> 
> If you would begin by confirming that detailed information on the IANA 
> costs break down will be made available to any representatives of the 
> ccTLDs, (in confidence, if appropriate) that should encourage the 
> appointment of cctld representatives to the budget process.
> 
> I would also appreciate your confirmation that the official ICANN
> position  on funding by the cctlds is still that it will be the
> individual contract each  cctld has with ICANN which will create an
> obligation binding the cctld to  fund ICANN, with the amount in any
> given year to be approved by a  policy process in the ccSO.
> 
> I think it is important to be able to assure ccTLDs that the sum which 
> each ccTLD will in future be obligated to pay to ICANN will be set by
> an  open and transparent process, operated within the ccSO, and not
> subject  to the control of ICANN or other entities outside the ccSO.
> 
> That way, there is both a further reason to encourage their
> participation in  that ICANN entity, and an answer to those who
> challenge the contracts on  the basis that they create un-enforceable
> (void for uncertainty) or unfair  open-ended obligations.
> 
> Your views on the other points will also be appreciated.
> 
> My best regards for 2003
> 
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> 
>> We are now beginning the budget process. The key milestones in the
>> process are the posting for public comment of the Preliminary Budget
>> around the middle of February, 2003 and of the Proposed Budget for
>> public comment around the middle of May, 2003. The board adopts the
>> actual Final Budget at its meeting at the end of June.
>> 
>> In the preparation of the Preliminary and Proposed Budgets, I am
>> advised by the Finance Committee, a committee of the ICANN Board, and
>> by the Budget Advisory Group, a committee appointed by me composed of
>> nominees recommended by the four functions of ICANN that provide the
>> bulk of our funding (the Registrars and Registries Constituencies, the
>> ccTLD Constituency, and the RIRs).
>> 
>> To assist me and these Committees in the formation of the Preliminary
>> Budget, your input would be very valuable. To help you in this regard,
>> I would point you to the approved Final Budget for the current fiscal
>> year, 2002-2003: see
>> http://www.icann.org/financials/budget-fy02-03-28jun02.htm.
>> 
>> The main focus of changes for 2003-2004 will be:
>> 
>> (a) Changes to the 2003-2004 that relate to inflation and other known
>> adjustments. (b) Changes attributable to what is required to
>> accomplish what is mandated by the reform steps approved by the Board,
>> including by the new Bylaws, designed to improve services to the
>> community. (c) Adjustments to strengthen ICANN's ability to provide
>> other services to the community that can be funded through redirection
>> of existing resources. I would note that we are still in process of
>> recruiting staff to fill the positions authorized as part of the
>> 2002-2003 budget; this staff expansion as of itself will lead to
>> improved services.
>> 
>> Any thoughts or proposals you might have that fit within these 
>> categories would be most welcome. Proposals for expanded activities
>> that do not fit within these categories would also be welcome, but it
>> would be  fair to note that it is less likely that there will be
>> funding available.
>> 
>> Please could you let me have your comments no later than Monday,
>> February 3, 2003.
>> 
>> Thank you, and all best wishes for 2003.
>> 
>> Stuart
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> __________________
>> Stuart Lynn
>> President and CEO
>> ICANN
>> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
>> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
>> Tel: 310-823-9358
>> Fax: 310-823-8649
>> Email: [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: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 12:18:16 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] Open call to join

- --=======3D4C33FC=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-36927ECE; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

At 21:57 31/12/02, [email-masked] wrote:
>My question remains;
>Why has the Panel not done anything toward making this at-large into a
>formal group
>as they were elected to do? And why do the refuse to answer this
>question?

Because whatever/wherever you want to incorporate you need to tell what 
for. This means a mission and a working style. Up to now no one was ever 
able to sort it out. The Richard/Vittorio/Joop/Judyth proposition may help 
to address that. We had a first try as a single standalone group (Joanna), 
then an ICANN lobby (Hans) now we may perhap's proceed to the support of an 
@large diversified community (we still have to sort out the 
differing  American Fededral top-down ("umbrella") and the European 
Confederal peer tro peer ("concerting relations/"concertance") concepts, we 
see in the proposed wordings.
jfc

- --=======3D4C33FC=======--

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

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

Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 18:29:25 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: FC: Steve Mann's struggles with Verisign and modest Perl proposal

Declan, Steve and all,

  Yes the problem with Transfer of Domain Names is still a problem
that supposedly the ICANN TF Task Force is suppose to be
working on and have issued a final report.  Yet the problem still
continue and are hampering registrants as well as disenfranchising
many registrants to the point of distraction and disruptiveness.  WLS
is supposedly under yet another ICANN "Study" as a proposed
solution..
For other references see the following links Steve:
 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021212.NCTransferTF-gaining-and-losing-registrars.html

 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021130.NCWhoisTF-accuracy-and-bulkaccess.html
  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-transfer/Arc02/
also comments can be sent to the following "Black Hole" E-Mail address
if you are so inclined:  mailto:[email-masked]

  I will pass this along, along with you script (See Below) to others
that have an interest in this.  Thanks again Steve and Declan for this
update and info.

Declan McCullagh wrote:

> [My version of lynx doesn't support https URLs, otherwise I'd join the fun,
> but FYI... --Declan]
>
> ---
>
> Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 17:29:58 -0500 (EST)
> From: Steve Mann <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Trying to get a response from Network Solutions (Verisign)
> Cc: [email-masked]
>
> Here's something your PoliTech readers might find interesting:
>
> --------included file--------
>
> I've been trying to transfer from the domain name monopoly
> (Netsol/Verisign) to another registrar, but they keep making it harder
> and harder to transfer.  (See http://wearcam.org/verisign/)
>
> I've tried phone calls, faxes, letters, but no luck.
>
> One of the reasons I'm transferring is that I don't agree to
> their Terms and Conditions, and they even have Terms and Conditions to
> "Agree" to in order to terminate service with them.  I was going to
> Ouijagree (e.g. get a bunch of friends to sit around the
> mouse/planchette, and make the spirits of the dead be bound by their
> Terms and Conditions, (href=http://wearcam.org/ouiki/index.htm)
> but I thought another approach would be the following shell script,
> which would hopefully help them get the message that I'd like to switch
> registrars.  If others would be willing to help me in transferring this
> domain, please consider running the following shell script.  If enough
> people run it, perhaps it would get their attention.  I've just finished
> being on "hold" for 2 hours on the telephone, and I'd really rather have
> my computer do the work+waiting, rather than me:
>
> #!/usr/bin/perl
> while (1) {
>   $commandstr = sprintf("lynx -dump
> https://registrar-transfers.com/\?h=bf97ce18c1f368afb106699eea6e802e >>
> temp.txt");
>   ($sec, $min, $hour, $mday, $mon, $year, $wday, $yday,
> $isdst)=localtime(time);
>   $d=sprintf("$sec, $min, $hour, $mday, $mon, $year, $wday, $yday, $isdst");
>   $datecommand = sprintf("echo $d >> temp.txt");
>   printf("lynx $d\n");
>   system($datecommand);
>   system($commandstr);
> }
>
> The logfile allows a graph to later be plotted of update frequency as a
> function of time.
>
> This might also form a nice experiment to see if enough requests are
> made, do they get the message?
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
> You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
> To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
> Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q=declan
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:24:27 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] More events on the .LA situation..

All former DNSO GA members,

Just on the heels of the .LA redeligation, this seemed a little more
than coincidental to me...
See:http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/02/1912258

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1545
*************************