Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1618
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, March 3 2003            Volume 01 : Number 1618

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

Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 21:01:28 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] VeriSign, registrars & the IPC

VeriSign Inc has applied for Category One membership in the IPC:

"The rationale of their application is their brand management services which 
they offer to intellectual property owners. Given we have previously accepted 
other registrars who offer similar services to IP owners, they have been 
approved by the membership committee." 

http://ipc.songbird.com/members-archive/0107.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: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 01:34:11 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALAC comments on proposed Bylaws modifications

Dear Roberto,
Your inputs are of usual interest.

On 22:33 01/03/03, Roberto Gaetano said:
>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.

You are true. Except that ICANN is not a stable component of the internet 
system. Some of its parts yes, but the whole thing not. For the pure sake 
of the analysis, let assume we create a parallel name space one can access 
with the schemes "httpara:", exemple "httpara://test.com" (what Dave 
Crocker proposes cleverly for years). Now, let consider what ICANN would 
continue offering as services to the httpara name space without any return.

>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).

You know that I share your support for ITU involvement, but not to that 
extent. To fully understand why, please remember that ITU is mainly low 
layers people: telecoms. IETF are higher layers. But actually the model 
extends and includes (8) interapplications, (9) assistants (10) users, (11) 
structures, (12) society and (sides) operators in the old Network Extended 
Model. That permits better to understand that most of what we discuss in 
here (we call it mission creep) is so totally out of the ITU scope that it 
did not even included in its model. Certainlyn we are to relate with ITU, 
but as our partner, not as our umbrella (everything depends on our 
directory, ie the root). ITU represents the interests of the Telcos, we 
represent 1/3 of their sales. So we indeed have something in common. But 
not to the point to depend on them.

There is a simple bridge we can use. ITU represents telephone and telephone 
is a very large name space. (tel://017072482449  works just fine). So, they 
can partner with us. Once ICANN has stabilized as the Legacy manager 
(gTLDs), we can have a G8 like concertation (European meaning) gathering 
ICANN (com/net/org/biz/info...), EU (.eu), USA (gov, mil, us, edu), the 
ccTLDs, the ecSLD/ecTLDs (e-communities), ISSN/ISBN and large nomenclatures 
etc. under a rotating Chair, so no one takes the lead. This is the way it 
worked - well - initially.

>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.

This is true within the legacy. The problem of ICANN is that it has both to 
manage the Legacy (with a certain outdated economy) and to respond the 
informal demand of the users, that @large represent. ICANN is IMHO unable 
to do it - but it blocks it - making activists to fight the wrong fight. 
The issue is not to have a few people voting with ballots. The real thing 
is to have billions voting with their usage.

In ill managing the name space and the domain name system, ICANN has 
blocked the development of the e-communities support (associations, cities, 
schools, trades, services, churches, etc,). This results both from the 
commercial unwiseness of Verisign and M$ and from the ccTLD total 
disrespect of their initial mission. Verisign has sold only DNs instead of 
a network population strategy (so now they are missing customers). ccTLDs 
have behaved as pale copies of Verisign, being registries instead of 
Managers. They have not animated their national communities. So they have 
no backing, no innovation and rise no interest. Their only protection today 
is to call on Govs: Internet, the nerve of free entreprise, calls for 
monopoly protection !!!

The result is that most of the users do not even think what they could do 
with the network, and that industry has not taken over. Web services mildly 
develop, OPES are still under debate at the IETF and ONES (open network 
extended services) not really looked into. Let accept that the whole thing 
has been mislead by the 1996 act, the FCC tries to "correct" now. The TIC 
concept was a real regression from the WTO preparation, when the USA 
evangelized the world about services. They lost momentum and only stayed 
with Information (Informatique) and Communications (Télécoms), two very old 
concepts by my own language. Users want services. TICs are products.

The day ICANN comes back to datacoms, there will be a big improvement (what 
means end to end stable and secure communications) - if they need the ITU 
to push them ! .... Maybe then we will they be able to start considering 
service continuity, over datarelations. That day, you will not need @large 
anymore, because on a daily basis users will manage their networks. And we 
will talk about TICS, S for services being the real interest of the users, 
and what pay... If the FCC has not killed all the ISPs in the meanwhile.

>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.

Oh, yes! Some of us are. But you are true, not ICANN, nor the USA BTW. You 
may have noted that in Richard Clarke's first draft, he quoted the places 
of interest to the USA. Africa was missing. But Dick Clarke is gone.

Unfortunately they have to learn that, in a network, the development 
measure is not the success of the first, but the development of the last 
one. This is like in a ships convoy: the speed of the convoy is the speed 
of the slowest less the zig-zags.

But, this is not a reason not to have anyone represented. I think it was 
Jefferson who said that a Representative is the relations of those who have 
no relations. Sending to the BoD some people knowing to spell Internet will 
never be bad.

>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.

Absolutely true. But we must accept also that they have not been helped. 
Building such an involvement and ties calls for time, patience, money. What 
the ALSC killed immediately with uncertainity, dispute and budget waste. 
They certainly could have used the $ 300.000 of the ALSC. We (@large 
people) also did not play our own role: look at the IDNO mess, look at the 
icannatlarge situation, etc..

Why not to accept to say "we failed" and "we will fail" as long as we do 
not want to analyze the problem from its root, ie the basic betrayal we all 
know: the power appetite of the Staff instead of a service spirit. Internet 
developed with a certain style, Jon Postel's one for many. It became a 
problem with another style, Joe Sims one for many too.

Power greed vs mission creep. Who is right? Louis Touton and Joe Sims will 
way that this way they managed the DNS stability .... Are they right? They 
themselves said "no" (Stuart Lynn's call and Joe's resignation), but the 
USG maintains ICANN in charge. For other reasons? ...

>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?

Agreed, he RALO is as bad as any other one. What we need is a Consumer 
council. Choosing the 12 consumers is a good symbol. But,  how many 
consumer organizations are like Jamie's paying a professional full time. 
That should not prevent Jamie to be at the BoD, however.

>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.

Why not, just what the users want: to unlock the internet? You can tell the 
people to get excited about the Internet, no one will move. They did in 
2000. ICANN killed that with the TLD limitation, with the lack of 
allocation of IP addresses to the mobile industry, with the poor IDN 
management, with the registrar "industry", with the letter to the Gov and 
then the call to the Govs, with the contact policy, with the illogic UDRP 
... let be candid: people/users are NOT excited anymore with that old 
patch-as-you-can system and technology.

Free the Internet first. Give it a momentum. Give it a spirit. Only give it 
a few ideas!  Give it a reasonable economical mode! When WoldCom is the 
model ... I am sorry no one is going to be excited.

>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).

Frankly, don't you think that it would be the same as long as the local 
user communities are so poorly animated by the ccTLDs. Name a single ccTLD 
which organizes a National Internet Show? Name one which sponsors its 
@large community and has organized an @large council? We do support the 
ccTLDs against ICANN's Staff rigidity, but what are they doing today? Are 
they organizing with us a stable relation with the ITU? No they go there alone.

What the Internet needs, is a new frontier. To revive everything. I hoped 
Vint could do it. He tried with his RFC "internet belongs to every one". 
But that was not that big. What is going to save us from the e-government 
control (look at the French law on the Internet now under vote .... the 
Minitel in its worst regulated days - not bad, but not good enough to 
develop).

We need a spark!

>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?

Unfortunately, if I consider he experience of the GA, of the IDNO and of 
icannatlarge ... you take the same ones, plus a few genuine disinterested 
people, and you do it again. As long as you use the same tools, the same 
people, the same technical  model without any innovation ....
jfc

- --
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: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 09:03:17 -0500
From: "Max Meier" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes

Yes liers act for WIPO as arbitrators and mediators. Unbelievable! 

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:36:33 -0500
To: "Max Meier" <[email-masked]>, "Domain.Disputes" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes

> 
> Hang it up, Max.  Nobody owes you an answer.
> 
> WIPO lied to you when they promised to give you one.
> 
> Get over it.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Max Meier" <[email-masked]>
> 
> 
> > I am still waiting.
> > How can one take them seriously if they are not able to answer a simple
> question within 3 months?
> 
> 
> > > > From: "Domain.Disputes" <[email-masked]>
> > > > Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:52:16 +0100
> > > > To: <[email-masked]>
> > > > Subject: Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes
> > > >
> > > > > Dear Mr. Meier,
> > > > >
> > > > > we have contacted NeuLevel, the .BIZ registry, with regard to your
> question and will come back to you shortly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
> 
> 

- -- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

- --
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 #1618
*************************