Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1605
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, February 21 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1605

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:35:40 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC appoints NomCom reps, Chairs and liaisons

At 11:55 PM +1300 2/20/03, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>At 09:00 p.m. 20/02/2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>>Comments are welcome.
>>=====
>>
>>http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19feb03.htm
>
>Top- down appointing is a lot easier than bottom-up electing.
>
>Without electorate, these poor people will nominate Board Members in a
>legitimacy vacuum.

The only thing I can see it paralleling is colonial rule by a monarchy.

We're the poor uneducated niggers, and these guys get picked for us,
because the ruling class don't think we're capable of doing it ourselves.

I thought this sort of shit went out of fashion with slavery.

So much for the U.S. being the world's greatest democracy! Someone in the
Commerce Department is pissing on their flag behind closed doors.

- -- 
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: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:46:42 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Council adopts Transfers and WHOIS

One point of clarification is needed to the summary below. The WHOIS Task Force
is preparing an issues report on privacy. The intent is to have a Council on 
privacy at Rio as part of the agenda. The Council will then determine how 
to create a policy development process. There was broad support by the TF
members, and by the Council to addressing privacy. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:14 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] FYI: Council adopts Transfers and WHOIS

The GNSO Council adopted both the Transfers and WHOIS Task Force
reports.  WHOIS was adopted with the votes of the gTLD registries,
but against the votes of the non-commercial users' constituency,
after it had been clarified which of the Task Force's
recommendations are consensus policies and which are just general
recommendations (and *not* binding).

I also understand that the agenda for the Council's next meeting now
includes the initiation of a policy-development process on WHOIS
privacy, for which an issues paper will have to be prepared --
either by the Task Force, or by some other body.

Regards,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        <[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, 20 Feb 2003 12:17:37 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Privacy Working Group

Dear Vint,

At the Shanghai session the Board approved the following:

Whereas, the ICANN Board wishes to consider whether it should establish an 
advisory committee addressing issues of privacy within ICANN's mission and 
responsibilities;

Resolved [02.130] that the Chairman of the Board is requested to form a 
working group of directors to investigate, including appropriate consultation 
with the community, the possible role or roles of an advisory committee on 
privacy, to propose a possible charter for such a committee, and to develop a 
proposal for the Board's consideration including a recommendation for the 
structure and composition of such a committee. 

Can you comment on the progress being made to establish this privacy advisory 
committee?

Best wishes,
Danny Younger

- --
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, 20 Feb 2003 18:28:51 +0100
From: "DNSO SECRETARIAT" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GNSO Council teleconference MP3 recording Feb. 20, 2003

[To: [email-masked], [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked], [email-masked]]

Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference held on
Thursday February 20, 2003.

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20030220.GNSOcouncil-teleconf.mp3

Happy listening!
GNSO Secretariat

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:35:18 -0500
From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Privacy Working Group

Hi Danny,

to be honest I haven't made a lot of progress (mostly just a consequence of
being overloaded and traveling 80% of my time), but it is definitely on the
agenda and I know that Andy Mueller-Maguhn is quite interested in pursuing
this topic. So thanks for the poke.

vint

At 12:17 PM 2/20/2003 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
>Dear Vint,
>
>At the Shanghai session the Board approved the following:
>
>Whereas, the ICANN Board wishes to consider whether it should establish an 
>advisory committee addressing issues of privacy within ICANN's mission and 
>responsibilities;
>
>Resolved [02.130] that the Chairman of the Board is requested to form a 
>working group of directors to investigate, including appropriate consultation 
>with the community, the possible role or roles of an advisory committee on 
>privacy, to propose a possible charter for such a committee, and to develop a 
>proposal for the Board's consideration including a recommendation for the 
>structure and composition of such a committee. 
>
>Can you comment on the progress being made to establish this privacy advisory 
>committee?
>
>Best wishes,
>Danny Younger

Vint Cerf
SVP Architecture & Technology
WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
703 886 0047 fax

- --
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, 20 Feb 2003 11:49:29 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC appoints NomCom reps, Chairs and liaisons

I too am *very* disappointed with the decision to appoint rather than 
elect; however, I wish to congratulate those who were hand selected to 
serve roles within the ALAC.  I have confidence that you will do your best 
to serve your public well, especially those whom I already know/am familiar 
with.

:)

Kristy McKee

At 11:55 PM 2/20/2003 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>At 09:00 p.m. 20/02/2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>>Comments are welcome.
>>=====
>>
>>http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19feb03.htm
>
>Top- down appointing is a lot easier than bottom-up electing.
>
>Without electorate, these poor people will nominate Board Members in a 
>legitimacy vacuum.
>
>
>
>-joop-
>
>
>--
>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, 20 Feb 2003 20:47:28 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Delegados del ALAC al Comite de Nominaciones

Spanish version of today's ALAC announcement (thanks to Erick Iriarte
Ahon).
======

El Comite Asesor At-Large anuncia Delegados al Comite de Nominaciones
del ICANN; Designaciones a Posiciones en el ALAC

19 de Febrero del 2003

El Comite Asesor Interino At-Large del ICANN (ALAC) anunció hoy día
que ha seleccionado cinco voluntarios de cinco diferentes regiones del
mundo para servir como miembros del Comite de Nominaciones, el nuevo
comite seleccionará la mitad de los nuevos miembros del Consejo del
ICANN así como individuos para servir en otras posiciones claves. El
ALAC tambien anuncia la designación de sus miembros para posiciones
internas y de enlace, incluyendo a Vittorio Bertola como ALAC Chair.

Los delegados At-Large ante el Comite de Nominaciones son:

Christian Ahlert (Alemania y Reino Unido - ciudadania y residencia, 
respectivamente)

Pavan Duggal (India)

Bret Fausett (USA)

Didier Kasole (República Democrática del Congo)

Gabriel Piñeiro (Argentina)

Información sobre los delegados se incluye al final.

Los voluntarios fueron examinados exhaustivamente por el ALAC, que 
seleccionó a estos cinco delegados entre un total de 66 diversos 
voluntarios procedentes de 30 países. El ALAC considera que este grupo
de delegados refleja los intereses globales de la comunidad At-large y
resuelve los criterios detallados dispuestos en los "bylaws" de ICANN,
y aplaude su buena voluntad de servir a la comunidad de Internet.

Los miembros del Comite de Nominaciones, incluyendo 12 delegados con
voto aparte de los 5 designados por el ALAC, servirán por un período
de un año. El Comite, que esta dirigido por Linda Wilson, Miembro del
Consejo del ICANN y ex-presidente del Radcliffe College, tendrá como
tarea inmediata la elección de 8 miembros al Consejo del ICANN, 5
miembros del ALAC y 3 miembros del Consejo del GNSO.

ALAC tambien anuncia que sus miembros Clemente Dzidonu y Erick Iriarte
Ahon servirán como Vice-Chairs del ALAC, y el ALAC ha solicitado el
servicio de los siguitnes miembros en las siguientes posiciones de
enlace: Thomas Roessler como enlace con el Name Council y el Whois
Task Force; Wendy Seltzer como enlace con el TLD Evaluation Teaam
(TEAC); y Hong Xue como enlace con el  Names Council’s Uniform
Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) Task Force. El ALAC está
aguardando la confirmación de la aceptación de estos enlaces, que se
espera que brinden una perspectiva del usuario individual del Internet
a los varios grupos de toma de tomas de decisiones y de creación de
políticas, y mantener al ALAC y la Comunidad At-Large informados de
actividades relevantes y de su efecto potencial sobre los usuarios
individuales del Internet.

El Comite Asesor At-Large del ICANN (ALAC) es el organo responsable de
considerar y proveer asesoramiento en las actividades del ICANN, en 
representación de los usuarios del Internet (en inglés se la conoce
como la Comunidad "At Large"). El ICANN, es una organización sin fines
de lucro, del sector privado, con responsabilidades técnicas en la
administración (y manejo) del Sistema de Nombres de Dominio y de
Direcciones IP, que confiará en el ALAC y en su infraestructura de
soporte para involucrar y que se represente en el ICANN los intereses
de los usuarios individuales en el sistema.

Por favor contactar a: <[email-masked]> para preguntas 
relacionadas con este anuncio.
- -- 
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
- -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
- --
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, 20 Feb 2003 15:46:15 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

On 20 Feb 2003 at 8:19, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 
> Danny, to be honest the issues as to what fees (if any) to be charged by a
> Registry for implementing a dispute process regarding transfer complaints
> was not addressed by the Transfer Task Force or Implementation Committee
> except that it is understood that a Registry should be able to recover its
> costs for administering the disputes. 
> 
> I do not mean to "punt" this issue, but for now, since the actual scope of
> the dispute process has not been set out and the rules and procedures have
> not been drafted, it is impossible for us as registries to tell you what
> such a charge (if any) would be.  

Until such time as these things are drafted, there should be no decision 
made to even consider the plan.  

To give you an example, if a Registry is
> only required to merely look at the transaction records and then make a
> determination as to whether it appeared on its face that a transfer was
> authorized, this would obviously cost a lot less to administer than if we
> were required to take in written pleadings (or something similar) with each
> party making arguments and make some sort of determination as to which
> position is correct.

If there is an error causing a registrant to "lose" a domain, the 
registrar and the registry should have NO fee assessed to the registrant.  
Perhaps if the registrars and registries were actually made responsible 
for errors, the process would be improved.  Stuff happens.  Processes are 
created by humans, so we have errors.  That does not mean customers should 
pay for them in any case.  OTOH, if there was no error, a registrant 
simply loses a domain.  That is also fair.  If I "forget" to renew a 
domain and don't keep records myself as to renewal dates, it's my fault.  
I lose.  That's really a no brainer and, as you pointed out, could be 
easily found by looking at transaction records.  However, if the domain is 
current and lost in transfer, it's your baby to fix, not mine, and should 
be handled on an immediate basis at your cost.  If a gaining registrar is 
uncooperative in returning a domain, the registry should have to effect 
the return and all fees returned to the illegitimate gaining registrant.

> 
> If these disputes were presided over by neutral third parties (rather than
> the registries), then obviously there would be no charge.

Once there is a dispute method, there will be frivolous claims made, just 
as we have seen with UDRP, costing registrants money they can ill afford. 

> 
> My recommendation on going forward would be for a group of interested
> parties to take a stab at a first comprehensive draft asto exactly how this
> dispute process would work, what remedies could be sought, who pays the
> costs, whether penalties could be assessed, etc.  Once that is complete, I
> believe the Registries (if we are the dispute providers) can make an
> assessment to any associated costs.

If that draft were done and published, perhaps there would be something to 
discuss.  Penalties for refusal to cooperate or effect corrections of 
errors, you bet.  That's a pretty good incentive to cooperate.

Leah

- --
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, 20 Feb 2003 16:03:01 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: (Fwd) RE: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

Sorry, this should have gone to the list.
- ------- Forwarded message follows -------

On 20 Feb 2003 at 10:11, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> You are absolutely correct.  I was referring to charges from the
> Registry. The Third party would charge more, but there would be no
> charges from the Registry.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.

There should be no need for an arbitration unless there has been a 
fraudulent transfer, such as in the sex.com case.  Even then, the registry
should have been able to flesh it out by securing signature documents to
show the fraud.  It's still something that should not have cost the
registrant any fees.  The buck still stops at the registry, IMO.  Perhaps 
a
penalty for allowing this to occur and lack of cooperation of the gaining
or losing registrar could be no access to registrations until they do
cooperate.  Think that might spur cooperation?  In the meantime, the
reigstry can still return the domain to the rightful registrant.

Leah

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

- --
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, 20 Feb 2003 16:11:38 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

On 20 Feb 2003 at 11:27, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Let me make the following points:
> 
<snip>

> 2)  In a transfer dispute, how can the Registry be at fault?  The Registry
> merely takes a commands from the gaining and/or losing registrars.  It has
> no interaction with the Registrant in the Transfer process.

If there is little or no cooperation from registrars, registries should 
have to step in and make corrections to errors as a last resort within a 
reasonable period of time - perhaps days.

> 
> 3)  Would you rather that third parties handle all disputes and that the
> Registries stay completely out of it?  In the Transfers Task Force work,
> the registries agreed to have limited involvement in trying to resolve
> disputes (so long as their costs were covered).  Are you saying that if the
> registries step in (to help resolve a dispute - to help registrants and
> registrars) that we should take on liability.  If that is the case, no
> registry in their right mind would step in.

Registries are the where the buck stops.  They have the registrations and 
have final control over how the domains perform (TLD server).  As such, if 
there is a dispute where the problem lies with the system or registrar 
error, the registry should have the responsibility of correcting the error 
whether the registrar cooperates or not.  

Your comment that no registry in its right mind would step in is the 
problem.  If there were penalites for harming the registrant due to lack 
of cooperation when there has been an error in the system or registrar, 
perhaps registries would have to pay a little more attention to the 
process.

I agree that the initial problem would lie with the registrar, but there 
has to be a fall back to the registry when registrars simply say "no."  
What is the role of the registry?  Are they to sit back and just collect 
fees for maintaining servers and databases with no responsibility to the 
registrant at all?

Leah
> 
> 

- --
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, 20 Feb 2003 16:15:51 -0500
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Privacy Working Group

My question to you would then be, how can there be any determination of 
how the WHOIS functions without consideration for privacy?  To me, this is 
one of the most important issues related to the WHOIS and until it is 
addressed, there should be no determinations.

Leah

On 20 Feb 2003 at 12:35, vinton g. cerf wrote:

> to be honest I haven't made a lot of progress (mostly just a consequence of
> being overloaded and traveling 80% of my time), but it is definitely on the
> agenda and I know that Andy Mueller-Maguhn is quite interested in pursuing
> this topic. So thanks for the poke.
> 
> vint

- --
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, 20 Feb 2003 22:51:12 -0000
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Privacy Working Group

Dear Vint

It is understandable that our busy lives overtake schedules sometimes (I
know mine does!) and you cannot act as a one-man show... we all have a part
to play in the development of policy. It does seem that ICANN at present
must be seriously understaffed, because there are other issues that have not
yet been dealt with. The Registry NewTLD Evaluation Reports (required by the
ICANN-Registrar Agreement) still seem to be unavailable to the various
constituencies who may wish to engage in *informed* participation in the
NewTLD Evaluations - an important issue, given the worldwide interest and
debate on the release of further New TLDs. According to the Agreement
Appendix U, almost all of these reports from the Registries should have been
available by May of last year (some even sooner). When I asked Stuart about
this in the summer, he explained that staff had "not had time to put the
reports online". (I asked him again in the autumn and again on Dec30th but
they still haven't had time, or so it seems.)

Your own personal commitments I understand because we are all human and have
complex lives to lead. However, on an issue which impacts on the whole world
(decisions about further TLDs, lessons to be learned etc) I believe the
staff should have *made* time to put these reports online.

If ICANN can afford $32,000 for ALAC members to fly to Rio (an initiative
that most At Large members oppose anyway), I suggest that the money would
have been better spent on an additional staff member to help the
organisation catch up on its backlog.

The ALAC is a *top down* imposed initiative, with *top down* unelected
participants. On the other hand, ICANN claims to encourage informed *bottom
up* participation. If that participation is genuinely to be informed, then
data which the Agreement made perfectly clear was to be available for
release, should not be withheld - or delayed because ICANN can't find
someone to FTP the reports up onto your website.

If I was a conspiracist, I would imagine that either Afilias or Neulevel
simply failed to provide the mandatory data, and ICANN has just hoped the
matter would be overlooked. On the other hand, you yourself assured me
otherwise last year, Vint, when you suggested that ICANN needed to
double-check the material and check with the Registries that it was all OK
to publish. As the Agreement stated in advance that the data could be made
available to others, I failed to see that the Registries would have included
anything confidential (unless they didn't understand their own agreements).

I guess it comes back to workload again. But ICANN's management *must* be
responsible for ensuring that funds and staffing are sufficient to do the
tasks involved in administering this vital world resource.

While you are instructing your staff to get this done , perhaps you could
kindly ask Mr Halloran to reply to the mail I sent him over 290 days ago,
which raised matters of fraud and serious concern, and which he has not even
bothered to acknowledge.

When, please, can we hope to see the NewTLD Evaluation Reports from the
Registries?

If it would help, send them to me, and I'll put them online for you.

Yrs,

Richard Henderson

- ----- Original Message -----
From: vinton g. cerf <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 5:35 PM
Subject: [ga] Re: Privacy Working Group

> Hi Danny,
>
> to be honest I haven't made a lot of progress (mostly just a consequence
of
> being overloaded and traveling 80% of my time), but it is definitely on
the
> agenda and I know that Andy Mueller-Maguhn is quite interested in pursuing
> this topic. So thanks for the poke.
>
> vint
>
> At 12:17 PM 2/20/2003 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Dear Vint,
> >
> >At the Shanghai session the Board approved the following:
> >
> >Whereas, the ICANN Board wishes to consider whether it should establish
an
> >advisory committee addressing issues of privacy within ICANN's mission
and
> >responsibilities;
> >
> >Resolved [02.130] that the Chairman of the Board is requested to form a
> >working group of directors to investigate, including appropriate
consultation
> >with the community, the possible role or roles of an advisory committee
on
> >privacy, to propose a possible charter for such a committee, and to
develop a
> >proposal for the Board's consideration including a recommendation for the
> >structure and composition of such a committee.
> >
> >Can you comment on the progress being made to establish this privacy
advisory
> >committee?
> >
> >Best wishes,
> >Danny Younger
>
> Vint Cerf
> SVP Architecture & Technology
> WorldCom
> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> Ashburn, VA 20147
> 703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
> 703 886 0047 fax
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 00:03:35 -0000
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

I agree with you, Leah. I mentioned earlier today here, that Nominet in UK
will step in, on behalf of a verifiable registrant, if a registrar is
refusing to co-operate. Bearing in mind that the Registrar Industry is
self-regulated, and does not even have a Code of Conduct, it's perfectly
obvious why some registrants / consumers encounter appalling problems.

The unregulated system (with ICANN pursuing an informal doctrine of "laissez
faire") is stacked in favour of some registrars getting away with blue
murder, remaining accredited and unsanctioned, and stacked against the
honest customer.

Here in UK I honestly think we have a more decent set up, with the Registry
reasonably separated from any profit motive, and willing (for example)
simply to carry out a transfer "over the heads of non-complaint registrars"
if a registrant requests the Registry so to do.

I've just today succeeded in shifting a dozen domains that a Registrar had
been holding to ransom. Instead of having to take the registrar to court,
Nominet acts on behalf of me as Registrant. As it's me who paid for the
commodity, me who has a right to change registrars if I wish, me who is
simply trying to do business without interference, and me who has the right
to these names, I think Nominet is absolutely right, and I thank them for
it.

It concerns me, if any other Registries take a different view (because of
financial concerns and self-interest). Let's get this straight: we need an
industry where the two go-between layers (Registry and Registrar) are only
justified if they are actually serving the consumer. Too often, a rogue
element in these layers has impeded normal people going about their normal
business.

I understand fears about over-regulation.

What is needed is *targetted* regulation to pre-empt injustices which rogue
elements will otherwise try to get away with.

ICANN should follow the lead and example set by the .uk and .aus registries,
and insist *as a condition of participation in the industry* that Registries
have to operate a mandatory Code of Conduct and Standards, and that
Registries are obliged *as a condition of participation in the industry* to
enforce a Code of Conduct on the Registrars with whom they have
Registry-Registrar Agreements.

Clearly ICANN can't directly control every tiny reseller and one-room
registrar all over the globe. The key channel, where implementation has to
occur, is the Registry... they are the channel... they can turn on and off
the supply.

But in order to make sure the Registry really enforces, ICANN should
contractually impose standards on Registries, who should stand to lose their
business and role if they do not comply.

In this context, Leah's points come into focus. You cannot (A) defend the
consumer, and (B) allow a laissez faire attitude to registrars, at the same
time. The Registry (as in the case of Nominet in, admittedly, a ccTLD
context) should take its responsibilities to the consumer seriously, and
should intervene on behalf of the legitimate consumer. THEN let the
registrar pursue normal local legal processes if it objects.

Of course, there are all kinds of variants, and not all registrants are
legitimate. However, it is a reasonable assumption that the vast majority of
registrants are legitimate, and Codes and Contracts should be put in place
to pre-empt many of the problems which ICANN could frankly forsee, so that
these problems are avoided in advance, rather than the consumer having to
try to sort them out after the event.

I am very sceptical about ICANN's priorities and motivations. I am far more
trusting about organisations like Nominet. To be honest, I think that ICANN
will end up doing the USG a vast disservice, because in the end, the rest of
the world will 'localise' the administration of the DNS, mirror the roots a
hundred times, and the outcome will be USG loses control of the internet
(which, of course, I would favour anyway).

In summary: failure of ICANN and the Registries and the Registrars to impose
an industry-wide Code of Conduct and mandatory standards... pathetic and
inexcusable.

These things *can* be achieved. AU shows they can.

It's a question of will.

Yrs,

Richard Henderson

- ----- Original Message -----
From: L. Gallegos <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 9:11 PM

> If there is little or no cooperation from registrars, registries should
> have to step in and make corrections to errors as a last resort within a
> reasonable period of time - perhaps days.
>
> Registries are the where the buck stops.  They have the registrations and
> have final control over how the domains perform (TLD server).  As such, if
> there is a dispute where the problem lies with the system or registrar
> error, the registry should have the responsibility of correcting the error
> whether the registrar cooperates or not.
>
> I agree that the initial problem would lie with the registrar, but there
> has to be a fall back to the registry when registrars simply say "no."
>
> Leah

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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:32:37 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Privacy Working Group

At 06:35 a.m. 21/02/2003, vinton g. cerf wrote:
>Hi Danny,
>
>to be honest I haven't made a lot of progress (mostly just a consequence of
>being overloaded and traveling 80% of my time),

Vint is currently here in Auckland, speaking at the Knowledge Wave 
Conference and simultaneously watching NZ being humiliated by .. New 
Zealanders in the Americas' Cup races.

I just come away from a breakfast with him, where we had the beginning of a 
dialog of sorts about the At Large.
Is this ICANN lowering its draw-bridges?

Will issues like  WHOIS privacy one day really get "voted on" by the whole 
interested community?

What is important for me is what structural and procedural solidity is 
needed to make such a vote the final word.

- -joop-

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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:06:23 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Council adopts Transfers and WHOIS

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, at 11:46 [=GMT-0500], Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP wrote:

> One point of clarification is needed to the summary below. The WHOIS Task Force
> is preparing an issues report on privacy. The intent is to have a Council on
> privacy at Rio as part of the agenda. The Council will then determine how
> to create a policy development process. There was broad support by the TF
> members, and by the Council to addressing privacy.

Good. I like to be proven wrong this time :-)

Thank you.

- -- 
[05] Round the clock here on the internet.
http://logoff.org/

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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:58:37 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DROA sending out "renewal" letters / WHOIS

I just found first-hand evidence for what looks like WHOIS abuse in
my physical mailbox: Domain Registry of America apparently turns
reseller and/or registrar and solicits me to renew my domain name
does-not-exist.org (and transfer it to them).  They also offer
does-not-exist.net, does-not-exist.biz, and does-not-exist.info to
me.  Bad enough, I'm not a business, and I'm already holding the
other two.

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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 05:38:10 -0500
From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Privacy Working Group

I am always open to constructive dialog :-)

v

At 12:32 PM 2/21/2003 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>At 06:35 a.m. 21/02/2003, vinton g. cerf wrote:
>>Hi Danny,
>>
>>to be honest I haven't made a lot of progress (mostly just a consequence of
>>being overloaded and traveling 80% of my time),
>
>
>Vint is currently here in Auckland, speaking at the Knowledge Wave Conference and simultaneously watching NZ being humiliated by .. New Zealanders in the Americas' Cup races.
>
>I just come away from a breakfast with him, where we had the beginning of a dialog of sorts about the At Large.
>Is this ICANN lowering its draw-bridges?
>
>Will issues like  WHOIS privacy one day really get "voted on" by the whole interested community?
>
>What is important for me is what structural and procedural solidity is needed to make such a vote the final word.
>
>
>-joop-
>

Vint Cerf
SVP Architecture & Technology
WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
703 886 0047 fax

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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 07:40:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DROA sending out "renewal" letters / WHOIS

ya - this has been going around. i frst saw DROA on the tucows discussion
list.  Ross@tucows probably knows more about it.

regards
joe

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

  Website Not Found http://nic.etc/
  we have alot of these in the inclusive namespace
  the more things change - the more they remain the same

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> I just found first-hand evidence for what looks like WHOIS abuse in
> my physical mailbox: Domain Registry of America apparently turns
> reseller and/or registrar and solicits me to renew my domain name
> does-not-exist.org (and transfer it to them).  They also offer
> does-not-exist.net, does-not-exist.biz, and does-not-exist.info to
> me.  Bad enough, I'm not a business, and I'm already holding the
> other two.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        <[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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1605
*************************