Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1617
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, March 1 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1617

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

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:49:43 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

On 2003-02-27 23:52:30 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:

> Language that appeared in the original draft is now missing from
> the adopted version, including "They shall ensure that At-Large
> Structures appropriately represent and involve individual
> Internet users who are citizens or residents of the RALO's
> geographical region. "
> 
> Instead, we have this:- "If so provided by its Memorandum of Understanding
> with ICANN, a RALO may also include individual Internet users who are
> citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's Geographic Region."

You may wish to look at the revised paragraph (i): "The criteria and
standards for the certification of At-Large Structures shall be
established in such a way that participation by individual Internet
users who are citizens or residents of countries within the
Geographic Region (...) will predominate in the operation of each
At-Large structure within the RALO." The language then goes on to
talk about RALOs being inclusive of all individual Internet users in
a given region to the extent feasible -- but you quote that.

> There is not even any comfort in the subsequent clause, "Each
> RALO's Memorandum of Understanding shall also include provisions
> designed to allow, to the greatest extent possible, every
> individual Internet user who is a citizen of a country within the
> RALO's Geographic Region to participate in at least one of the
> RALO's At-Large Structures." Does the phrase, "to the greatest
> extent possible" sound familiar?  It should. This carries as much
> weight as ICANN's now infamous commitment to operating in an open
> and transparent manner, "to the maximum extent feasible", which
> as we all know, has been shrouded in secrecy and back room
> dealing for years.

Do you want to do things beyond the extent of what's feasible?  I
think that this is commonly referred to as "magical thinking"....
;-)

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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:58:11 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Five-year policy implementation cycle

Dear Louis,

I appreciate the fact that last October you took it upon yourself to draft a 
Briefing Concerning Implementation of Policies by Registrars and Registry 
Operators.  I was reminded of that document while listening to your comments 
in the recent GNSO Council session during which you stated that some policy 
changes might only be amenable to being phased in via the process of 
individual Registrar contract renewal (which could take up to 5 years).

In my view, that would not accord well with the concept of a "nimble" private 
coordinating entity.  Further, if major issues that affect registrants (such 
as transfers) aren't managed in a timely fashion owing to the nuances of the 
current contractual environment, public confidence in the ICANN process is 
sure to erode to the detriment of all participants. 

At this time, could we ask you to consider preparing an additional briefing 
specifying which implementational details, in your view, will necessitate 
using the registrar contract renewal mechanism?

Thanks,
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: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:48:01 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

Thomas and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

  Thomas, I am not clear or sure as to what you or the language
you provided below, the term "Feasible" is in this context.
Can you define "Feasible" in the context of the RALO suggestion?
Will the term "Feasible" be defined in the context of the RALO
suggestion's language?  If not, than any interpretation of what IS
Feasible is a matter of Subjective determination, and therefore
can change from time to time in fairly rapid sequence to fit
any persons determination of what is Feasible.

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2003-02-27 23:52:30 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > Language that appeared in the original draft is now missing from
> > the adopted version, including "They shall ensure that At-Large
> > Structures appropriately represent and involve individual
> > Internet users who are citizens or residents of the RALO's
> > geographical region. "
> >
> > Instead, we have this:- "If so provided by its Memorandum of Understanding
> > with ICANN, a RALO may also include individual Internet users who are
> > citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's Geographic Region."
>
> You may wish to look at the revised paragraph (i): "The criteria and
> standards for the certification of At-Large Structures shall be
> established in such a way that participation by individual Internet
> users who are citizens or residents of countries within the
> Geographic Region (...) will predominate in the operation of each
> At-Large structure within the RALO." The language then goes on to
> talk about RALOs being inclusive of all individual Internet users in
> a given region to the extent feasible -- but you quote that.
>
> > There is not even any comfort in the subsequent clause, "Each
> > RALO's Memorandum of Understanding shall also include provisions
> > designed to allow, to the greatest extent possible, every
> > individual Internet user who is a citizen of a country within the
> > RALO's Geographic Region to participate in at least one of the
> > RALO's At-Large Structures." Does the phrase, "to the greatest
> > extent possible" sound familiar?  It should. This carries as much
> > weight as ICANN's now infamous commitment to operating in an open
> > and transparent manner, "to the maximum extent feasible", which
> > as we all know, has been shrouded in secrecy and back room
> > dealing for years.
>
> Do you want to do things beyond the extent of what's feasible?  I
> think that this is commonly referred to as "magical thinking"....
> ;-)
>
> 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
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, 28 Feb 2003 15:53:05 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Quote of the Day - Barcelona.com

Oral arguments were heard today in the Barcelona.com case, now on appeal at
the Fourth Circuit.  I will post a detailed report elsewhere later, but the
quote of the day goes to this exchange between Hon. J. Paul V. Niemeyer of
the Fourth Circuit, and Jordan Weinstein of Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier
& Neustadt:

Niemeyer:  Have you ever been to Barcelona?

Weinstein:  Yes, I have.  I was there just a few weeks ago.

Niemeyer:  While you were there, did you notice whether any private
businesses, shops, or cafes used the word "Barcelona" on them?

Weinstein:  I was not there on that kind of sightseeing trip.

Niemeyer:  Well I'VE been to Barcelona, and I saw a lot of them.

[this is from my notes, and is accurate in content, if not verbatim]

- --
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, 01 Mar 2003 12:36:48 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

>
>
>Do you want to do things beyond the extent of what's feasible?  I
>think that this is commonly referred to as "magical thinking"....
>;-)

Thomas,

In technical circles, yes.

But feasible in a political context is a great deal fuzzier and its extent 
is generally determined by the stronger party.

Regards,

- -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: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 12:52:46 +0100 (MET)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] CENTR Press release from the 17th GA and AGM

Dear Colleagues,

Some news from CENTR.

The ITU website provides all documents submitted to the
Workshop on Member States' Experiences with ccTLDs
(Geneva, 3-4 March 2003)
http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/workshop/cctld/index.html

Kind regards,
Elisabeth Porteneuve
ccTLD liaison to GNSO

=====================================================================
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:14:05 +0100
To: [email-masked]
From: Gabriella Schittek <[email-masked]>
Subject: CENTR Press release from the 17th GA and AGM

Communiqué from the 17th CENTR GA

The Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries (CENTR)
convened its 17th General Assembly, and 2003 Annual General Meeting, 
in Frankfurt, Germany on the 27th and 28th February 2003. Twenty-six 
national ccTLD registries were represented at the meeting, as well as
representatives from two gTLD registries and the European Commission.

The meeting held elections to select a new Executive Committee.

Bart Boswinkel (.nl) and Alf Hansen (.no) were reappointed as members of
the Excom (the Board of CENTR), while Paul Kane was elected to the Excom
and welcomed as the new CENTR chairman. Paul M Kane is the manager of .ac.

The meeting paid tribute to the resigning chairman Willie Black for his
devoted work as a CENTR chair.

With a joint ccTLD-ITU Workshop to be held, CENTR submitted an interim
position paper on the 22 February 2003. During the GA meeting, members
revised the document and approved the revised version. It will be
submitted for the meeting to be held in Geneva, Switzerland on 3-4 
March 2003.

CENTR adopted a recommendation on the operation of the IANA function, 
to improve the stability of the IANA. The IANA function refers to the
maintenance of a database containing the officially recognised ccTLD
managers.

A preliminary version of the adopted paper was sent to the Department of
Commerce, who has an oversight function of the IANA database. CENTR hopes
that its recommendation will be a way to improve the IANA services.

Interesting discussions were held on a number of operational issues such
as international characters used in Domain Names, Domain Name Server
enhancements and processes for document management within the organisation.

The next meeting will be held on 2nd and 3rd June in Budapest, Hungary.

- --
- --
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, 01 Mar 2003 21:33:45 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

Vittorio (reply to Joanna) wrote:
>
> >First, let's not forget that ICANN has no future without an At Large to
> >which significant numbers of existing At Large Activists can be 
>delivered.
> >Without that, it cannot support any claim to be fulfilling its core 
>mission
> >and ultimately will collapse.
>
>...and likely be replaced by the ITU, an intergovernmental
>organization that knowingly gives the public voting powers and broad
>ways to participate. Would that be an achievement for us?
>

The problems, the way I see them, are:
1) ICANN, in V1.0, has lasted many years. There is no indication that V2.0 
(or Vn.m, for that matter) will be either substantially different or less 
durable than V1.0. Given the fact that the human life is limited, unlike the 
series of cardinal numbers, the probability of seeing a substantially 
different ICANN Vn.m within our lifespan is almost 0. This, obviously, 
unless we find a radically new way to push ICANN in a new direction.
2) As already discussed, there is no big problem, from my POV, to give to 
International Treaty Organizations (ITU or other) the parts of the supposed 
mission of ICANN that are best handled outside the control of a single 
Government (example, the management of the Root).
3) With reference to the "what to do now", in this message andf in the 
general thread on the subject, I believe that we concentrate too much on 
aspects related to the "power" of the user community in ICANN, without 
having actually any involvment (let alone a demonstrable show of 
willingness) for said user community.
Unfortunately, I deleted the very good contribution of Karl, paralleling IP 
Constituency and Individual Constituency (incidentally, anybody archiving 
publicly this list?), so I have to quote from memory. Anyway, the point is 
that IP were successful because they expressed the interests that were 
common to the category (constituency), while the user community is much more 
dispersed.
This only means that the task is more difficult, but cannot be an excuse for 
skipping the step.
In other words, we are claiming representation in name of a body that never 
clearly stated the willingness to be represented, let alone fighting for 
this representation. The problem, IMHO, is not to organize elections where 
only a fraction of 1% of the Internet users will participate, but to 
organize the Internet users, and then to define with them how to proceed.
Some of the older among you might have witnessed the students in the late 
´60s-early ´70s going to tell the "working class" what they had to do, and 
claiming representativity in their place because they were no "mature 
enough" to act. Well, some of the claims of representativity of user 
interests remind me of that. Most of us have not even seen the average 
Internet user in the developing countries, not to speak about having the 
slightest idea of what their needs and priorities are.
Let´s start from the last AtLarge elections. What has been the key of the 
success (at least in some countries)? The interest of the media on the 
subject, and the activity created on the regional level by some initiatives 
(Thomas Roessler´s list comes to my mind). Before that election, in 
I-don´t-remember-which ICANN meeting, I said that the problem is not to 
elect 5 rather than 9 AL Directors, but how we will be able to involve the 
AL community. Years later, we find that we have lost time, because while the 
AL Directors have performed their tasks within the Board, IMHO they have 
failed their mission to their electors: to use their power to promote the 
self-organization of the AL community to prepare higher awareness and 
participation in new elections.
The Regional model of the RALOs is not a bad one, giving the current 
circumstances. It is not perfect, and it can be criticized by the 
maximalists of the "one-person-one-vote" party. While the 
"one-person-one-vote" can be a target, it is absolutely impossible that it 
could lead to meaningful results in the shoert term (IMHO). Let´s face it: 
none of us has the slightest idea on how to contact and bring to the ballot 
box millions of users worldwide. Besides, does anybody have any idea about 
"why" should they care?
But on one thing I would make a clear statement: the future AL Directors 
should take a strong commitment to have during their mandate one highest 
overriding priority, which is to do their best to organiza the AL community 
to be more mature the next time around.
Incidentally, I still believe that this is best done via Regional councils, 
and that it has been a terrible mistake to change this approach for a direct 
election. A Director is powerless in organizing the AL community in his/her 
region: I can´t blame Andy for not having done it in my region, as he has 
enough to do for the Board, let alone the fact that he must do something 
else for living, as most of us. A team of Council Delegates from different 
countries would have had more time and resources to do it (incidentally, 
that would have also helped the localization of ICANN).
Anyway, the fact is that we have lost time. Can we possibly learn from 
mistakes, or are we forced to go through this once again?

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online  
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

- --
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 #1617
*************************