Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1632
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, March 14 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1632

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

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:46:20 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

From: "Andy Gardner" <[email-masked]>
> >
> >That's great, but then how do you pay the electric bill at the end of the
> >month?
>
> Mousetrapping porn banner farm popups?

That's not a half-bad idea.  The ITU would be a natural for banner ads for
900 numbers, and for those porn-dialers that make people's computers dial
toll numbers to Madagascar.  They could probably increase revenue, benefit
their own members, and still manage to subsidize the cost of providing their
publications for free.

- --
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, 14 Mar 2003 12:32:12 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ccTLD NomCom delegate appointed

- --=====================_6939648==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 10:41 p.m. 13/03/2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-12mar03.htm
>
>Tony Staley, present Chairman of auDA (.au ccTLD manager) and former
>Chairman of the Liberal Party of Australia, has been appointed by the
>Board as ccTLD delegate to the NomCom.

Hmm.
Add to this the pending appointment of another Australian (well known to us 
all) as the new ICANN CEO...

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58264-2003Mar7.html

- -joop-
- --=====================_6939648==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
At 10:41 p.m. 13/03/2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><a href="http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-12mar03.htm" eudora="autourl">http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-12mar03.htm</a><br>
<br>
Tony Staley, present Chairman of auDA (.au ccTLD manager) and 
former<br>
Chairman of the Liberal Party of Australia, has been appointed by
the<br>
Board as ccTLD delegate to the NomCom.</blockquote><br>
<br>
Hmm. <br>
Add to this the pending appointment of another Australian (well known to
us all) as the new ICANN CEO...<br>
<br>
&nbsp;<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58264-2003Mar7.html" eudora="autourl"><font color="#0000FF"><u>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58264-2003Mar7.</a><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58264-2003Mar7.html" eudora="autourl">html<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</a></u></font>&nbsp;<br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
- -joop-</html>

- --=====================_6939648==_.ALT--

- --
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, 14 Mar 2003 15:03:26 +1300
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] a cctld representative

Dear Board,
I gather the board has appointed a representative to act as the cctld 
representative on the Nominating committee.

The board is to be congratulated. Faced with the huge diversity of 
opinion, geography, legal tradition, ethnicity and language that the cctlds 
represent, which causes we elected officials of cctld instituitions so much 
time and trouble in establishing consensus positions on key matters, the 
board has been able, by a secret process, to appoint a white, middle-
aged male, from a country with an Anglo-Saxon based linguistic and legal 
tradition closely similar to that of the US.

Of course, the board is also entirely justified in selecting someone from 
one of the very few countries to actually sign a contract with ICANN. 

Doubtless the board has prepared answers to those who will suggest that 
such a representative is non-representational. Similarly, the board will be 
able to ridicule any who were to suggest that the fact that Australia is one 
of the few countries in the world supporting the current US approach to 
honouring UN resolutions, or that the next Chair of ICANN is from 
Australia, or that Australia's long term support of the GAC has anything to 
do with this appointment.

All of these answers will no doubt ring with the authenticity of a board 
devoted to the principles of open and transparent process, and with an 
eye to persuading the cctlds that ICANN is an organisation which they 
should join. 

I look forward to learning of the mechanism by which he will be provided 
with the consensus views of the cctlds in order to carry out the function. 
Doubtless another bottom-up, transparent and  consultative process will 
be adopted, as a result of which cctlds will be told what their 
representative has done. 

My regards

Peter Dengate Thrush

- --
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, 13 Mar 2003 20:46:18 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] a cctld representative

At 3:03 PM +1300 3/14/03, [email-masked] wrote:

>Doubtless the board has prepared answers to those who will suggest that
>such a representative is non-representational. Similarly, the board will be
>able to ridicule any who were to suggest that the fact that Australia is one
>of the few countries in the world supporting the current US approach to
>honouring UN resolutions, or that the next Chair of ICANN is from
>Australia, or that Australia's long term support of the GAC has anything to
>do with this appointment.

The Register has some interesting comments.

http://theregister.co.uk/content/6/29711.html

"And while this might be enough to torpedo Twomey 's title to the job in
some parts, charges of nepotism will be harder to refute. Twomey
established a consultancy company Asia Pacific with Ira Magaziner, who was
instrumental in establishing ICANN itself. "

- -- 
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, 13 Mar 2003 22:13:01 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] a cctld representative

I don't agree that the link to Magaziner should be held against Twomey.
Cf. http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/08/1720226&mode=nested

and also

http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/10/2258242&mode=nested

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Andy Gardner wrote:

> At 3:03 PM +1300 3/14/03, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> >Doubtless the board has prepared answers to those who will suggest that
> >such a representative is non-representational. Similarly, the board will be
> >able to ridicule any who were to suggest that the fact that Australia is one
> >of the few countries in the world supporting the current US approach to
> >honouring UN resolutions, or that the next Chair of ICANN is from
> >Australia, or that Australia's long term support of the GAC has anything to
> >do with this appointment.
> 
> The Register has some interesting comments.
> 
> http://theregister.co.uk/content/6/29711.html
> 
> 
> 
> "And while this might be enough to torpedo Twomey 's title to the job in
> some parts, charges of nepotism will be harder to refute. Twomey
> established a consultancy company Asia Pacific with Ira Magaziner, who was
> instrumental in establishing ICANN itself. "
> 
> 
> 
> 

- -- 
		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 warm 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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:59:46 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: FC: Airplane critic gets sued over site -- but insurance pays defense

Jim and all,

  I agree.  As and aviator myself and a former Marine Avaitor
this is a very great concern.  However I must also say that the
issue of Domain Name ownership is being used here to apply
some sort of political pressure improperly and inexcusably.

  Still, well done Jim!

Jim Folts wrote:

> Jeff,
> Thanks for your note of support.
>
> The real issue here is aviation safety. And it goes
> far beyond small private aircraft. As the airlines
> have gotten deeper into financial trouble, they have
> contracted an increasing share of their maintenace to
> questionable operations like Piedmont Hawthorne. You
> only need to look at accidents like the recent one in
> Charlotte that killed 19 people to realize how serious
> the maintenance safety situation has become. Just
> today, I received documentation that indicates United
> has serious problems with contract maintenance on some
> of their big jets.
>
> Sloppy automobile maintenance leaves you stranded at
> the side of the road. Sloppy aircraft maintenance
> means they pick your pieces out of the trees on some
> mountain. This is more than a pilot free speech issue.
> The safety of every passenger who steps into an
> aircraft is at stake.
>
> We need all the support you can give us.
>
> Jim Folts
>
> --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Declan and all,
> >
> >   Very interesting case here.  Perhaps the ICANN
> > GNSO/DNSO
> > UDRP Task force could gain a clue from these sorts
> > of cases.
> > But somehow I kinda doubt it...
> > And so the TM - Domain Name wars continue...
> >
> >   That's sticking it to them Jim and Paul!
> >
> > Declan McCullagh wrote:
> >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:00:49 -0500
> > > From: "Paul Levy" <[email-masked]>
> > > To: <[email-masked]>
> > > Cc: <[email-masked]>
> > > Subject: "First they nearly killed me ... now
> > they're suing me!"
> > >
> > > That is the theme for the latest in the Internet
> > trademark wars.
> > >
> > > Jim Folts, who lives near Knoxville Tennessee,
> > suffered a mishap in a
> > > private plane that he was flying, and he felt that
> > Piedmont Hawthorne
> > > Aviation, an airplane repair shop that had
> > serviced his plane, was
> > > responsible.  He took his problem to the National
> > Transportation Safety
> > > Board, which found that Piedmont Hawthorne was
> > responsible.  But when
> > > Folts set up a website titled Aircraft Pilots for
> > Better Maintenance,
> > > and used Piedmont Hawthorne's name is his domain
> > name and meta tags,
> > > Piedmont Hawthorne sued Folts alleging trademark
> > and defamation
> > > theories.
> > >
> > > Piedmont appears to have sued the wrong guy, at
> > the wrong time.  It is
> > > the wrong guy because Folts doesn't like being
> > pushed around and, it
> > > turns out, he has the luxury of being able to
> > afford to stand up for his
> > > free speech rights because Folts is covered for
> > this lawsuit by his
> > > insurance.  So he is going to have a fully
> > financed and high-class
> > > defense.  Indeed, the first thing I ask any
> > cybergriper who comes to me
> > > is, do you have insurance coverage so that you can
> > hire a lawyer.  If
> > > more people thoughy about this BEFORE they got
> > threatened with
> > > litigation, they'd be a lot better off.  Second,
> > the lawsuit was filed
> > > within days after the Sixth Circuit decided
> > Taubman v. Mishkoff, which
> > > would seem to preclude the trademark claims
> > altogether.   (we actually
> > > decided not to take the case because, in light of
> > Taubman, it seemed
> > > clear to us that the trademark claims were
> > untenable and the only real
> > > issues in the case was deframation for which a
> > local lawyer would be
> > > better)
> > >
> > > The story, including information about the
> > lawsuit, is now on Folts'
> > > website at http://www.aircraft-maintenance.com .
> > He stopped using the
> > > Piedmont-related domain name after he consulted a
> > local lawyer.   Now
> > > that he has experienced trademark counsel,
> > however, that may well
> > > change.
> > >
> > > Paul Alan Levy
> > > Public Citizen Litigation Group
> > > 1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
> > > Washington, D.C. 20009
> > > (202) 588-1000
> > > http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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/
> > > Like Politech? Make a donation here:
> > http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
> > >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Declan McCullagh's photographs are at
> > http://www.mccullagh.org/
> > >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com

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, 14 Mar 2003 17:51:28 +1300
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: (Fwd) a cctld representative

    Dear Stuart,
    I'd prefer this exchange to stay on the public lists, and assume you have no problem 
    with that.

    On 13 Mar 2003 at 18:54, M. Stuart Lynn wrote:
    > Dear Peter:
    > 
    > Thank you for your input.

    > I find it odd that you should think that a board as globally diverse
    > as is that of ICANN selected Mr. Staley because of his alleged (by
    > you)  pro-U.S. bias.  I also find it odd that you should consider a
    > process to be closed and secretive when solicitations and nominations
    > were openly posted on our website and an email request for suggestions
    > went to every ccTLD administrator.

    I should be very glad to see the nominations that were made, and what result there 
    was to the solicitations made. Can you point me to where the nominations are 
    listed? Thanks.  
    > Could it be that Mr. Staley is in fact very well-qualified if you
    > analyze the requirements for a member of the Nominating Committee?
    > Independent of his nationality. Or am I perceiving traditional rivalry
    > between Australia and New Zealand?
    > 
    I make no coment at all about Mr Staley's suitability. but about the process of 
    appointment.

    > And then again, I did not see any interesting nominations come in from
    > you or for you. Or from any member of the ccTLD Admin. Or from the
    > ccTLD Admin collectively.  Did we miss something? I come from a school
    > that believes that if one does not choose to participate in a process,
    > one can hardly be surprised at the outcome.

    Yes, you missed something.

    The solicitation read in part:
     
    "To the ccTLD community:

       ICANN's reform process has resulted in adoption of a Nominating Committee
       mechanism for selection of qualified candidates to ICANN's Board of Directors (8
       seats), the At-Large Advisory Committee (5 seats), and the GNSO Council (3
       seats). (When the Country-Code Names Supporting Organization is formed, three
       of its eighteen members will also be selected by the Nominating Committee.)"

    I for one found this final statement breathtakingly arrogant.

    The cctld opposition to having appointments from the Nominating Committee is well 
    publicised and well known. It can be seen, for example in the first statements made 
    in response to the Blueprint in Bucharest, and most recently confirmed at the 
    APTLD AGM by that regional association. An extract from the AGM's statement is 
    pasted below, and has been sent to the Icann reeform site:

    Preliminary Recommendations on ccNSO Council
    
3.1.APTLD confirms that the council comprise fifteen voting members 
    being three from each geographical region[1]. The ccTLDs have established 
    regular liaisons with the other ICANN constituencies and SOs and because 
    of our responsibilities to the local Internet communities have taken into 
    account the interests and viewpoints of the wider Internet stakeholders.
    
3.2.Should the Board ignore the strong feeling and appoint council 
    members via the Nominating Committee, then natural justice requires that 
    ccTLDs be represented on that committee.

    I understand that at least Centr has also continued with its rejection of this feature.

    How you can be publishing a statement like that in the solicitation, when the issue of 
    the ccSO hangs in the balance simply escapes me.

    We have been led to believe that if the cctlds come to Rio, and debate the report of 
    the assistance group, or the ERC comments on it, that that debate will actually be 
    taken into account in framing any bylaws setting up an SO.

    This statement makes it clear that despite a continuation of unanimous rejection of 
    that principle by the cctlds, at least the Chair of the ERC intends to carry on with a 
    SO which suits him, not the intended members.

    I'd be very interested in your view about this point. 

    Do you accept that rejection of this principle by the cctlds meeting in Rio will result 
    in this feature of the Blueprint being removed?

    If not, what is to be gained by debate in the face of pre-determined positions?

    So, you see that the issue of the Nominating Committee rather turns on the issue of 
    the shape of the SO.

    If the cctlds don't like it, and decide in any reasonable numbers not to join ICANN, 
    they have little or no interest in who sits on the Appointments Committee.

    If they do get an SO in a form which they choose to join, they don't need 
    membership of that committee, as it will not be making appointments to their 
    Council, and they see it as inappropriate to have a voice in making appointments to 
    other bodies. 

    If there is to be appointments by an appointments committee to the ccSO, ( lets not 
    rule out this, for the sake of argument ) then you can expect to hear from the cc's on 
    what they consider is an appropriate level of membership - one out 19 members 
    strikes us as rather limited.

    So I rather think this uncertainty is behind why you heard nothing from the Adcom 
    and from other cctlds.

    > And your statement about obtaining consensus views shows that you do
    > not understand how the Nominating Committee is supposed to work.
    > Members are delegates not representatives.

    Probably true -its irrelevance to the possible place for cctlds in ICANN has meant 
    few of us have studied it much. I personally think its a camel of an idea.

     Once appointed, they act in
    > the way they think best bringing their own broad experiences and
    > contacts to the table. As far as directors with a representative
    > flavor are concerned, the ccNSO, once formed, would elect two
    > Directors.
    >
    Which raises another interesting issue. If an SO is formed and only a few countries 
    join, say the few countries who have signed contracts, would those few still be 
    entitled to two board seats? Why?
    > Cheers -- hope to see you in Rio.
    >
    Absolutely. I think organising cctld meetings alongside ICANN's meetings is useful 
    way to exhange ideas, and trust that it continues.

    Regards

    Peter
    > Stuart
    > 
    > >------- Forwarded message follows -------
    > >From:          	Self <[email-masked]>
    > >To:            	[email-masked], lynn@icann,
    > >	org
    > >Subject:       	a cctld representative
    > >Copies to:     	[email-masked], [email-masked]
    > >Date sent:     	Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:42:13 +1300
    > >
    > >Dear Board,
    > >I gather the board has appointed a representative to act as the cctld
    > >representative on the Nominating committee.
    > >
    > >The board is to be congratulated. Faced with the huge diversity of
    > >opinion, geography, legal tradition, ethnicity and language that the
    > >cctlds represent, which causes we elected officials of cctld
    > >instituitions so much time and trouble in establishing consensus
    > >positions on key matters, the board has been able, by a secret
    > >process, to appoint a white, middle- aged male, from a country with
    > >an Anglo-Saxon based linguistic and legal tradition closely similar
    > >to that of the US.
    > >
    > >Of course, the board is also entirely justified in selecting someone
    > >from one of the very few countries to actually sign a contract with
    > >ICANN.
    > >
    > >Doubtless the board has prepared answers to those who will suggest
    > >that such a representative is non-representational. Similarly, the
    > >board will be able to ridicule any who were to suggest that the fact
    > >that Australia is one of the few countries in the world supporting
    > >the current US approach to honouring UN resolutions, or that the next
    > >Chair of ICANN is from Australia, or that Australia's long term
    > >support of the GAC has anything to do with this appointment.
    > >
    > >All of these answers will no doubt ring with the authenticity of a
    > >board devoted to the principles of open and transparent process, and
    > >with an eye to persuading the cctlds that ICANN is an organisation
    > >which they should join.
    > >
    > >I look forward to learning of the mechanism by which he will be
    > >provided with the consensus views of the cctlds in order to carry out
    > >the function. Doubtless another bottom-up, transparent and
    > >consultative process will be adopted, as a result of which cctlds
    > >will be told what their representative has done.
    > >
    > >My regards
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >Peter Dengate Thrush
    > >
    > >------- End of forwarded message -------
    > 
    > 
    > -- 
    > 
    > __________________
    > 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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:43:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] a cctld representative

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 [email-masked] wrote:
 
> I look forward to learning of the mechanism by which he will be provided 
> with the consensus views of the cctlds in order to carry out the function. 
> Doubtless another bottom-up, transparent and  consultative process will 
> be adopted, as a result of which cctlds will be told what their 
> representative has done. 

Well, I first heard the name of Mr. Staley in an email that landed in my
e-mail inbox at 4:54am PST on the morning of March 12.  The board meeting
in which that person was selected from among a slate consisting of two
candidates, started about six minutes later, at 5am PST.

6 minutes. 

6 minutes for meaningful public commentary, for a bottom-up, transparent, 
consultative process.  Yup, six minutes.

		--karl--

- --
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, 14 Mar 2003 08:34:00 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [ncdnhc-discuss] my nomination  for ICANN Board

- --=====================_6753147==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Thank you, Jeff.
You know how much we Europeans tend to consider this issue as important. 
The CAPP II and TIA and many other US attitudes on privacy are here 
regarded as ... disconcerting.

The real issue is: if the WhoIs is of any worth it must work. Overdoing it 
will only create a tendency to passive resistance (generalized wrong 
information) or to boycott (usage of other TLDs or open roots). Should the 
Iraqi war go on (our role here is to consider the DNS issues) I would fear 
a destabilization of the whole naming system should the fashion develop to 
internationalize and detach oneself from an US image (I understand that the 
US airline industry openly discussed that risk with the USG, we could not 
be serious if we did not at least consider it prior to adding to an 
increasingly questionned/resented system). I think that relaxing the WhoIS 
to its minimum necessity is now an absolute commercial need for NSI.
jfc

On 03:37 14/03/03, Neuman, Jeff said:

>I usually do not step into these debates (since I am not a noncomm member, 
>but I do like to follow the debates), but as a member of the US Policy 
>Council, I have to correct a misunderstanding.  The US Policy Council 
>discussed Whois Accuracy for several meetings and then I (along with the 
>rest of Council) asked Mike to draw up the proposal that was being 
>discussed.  Mike submitted the proposal, but it was in response to what we 
>(the Council) asked him to and he volunteered to draft up our thoughts.
>
>I know for a fact that Michael is always championing Privacy rights (if 
>you heard him speak in front of the FTC a few weeks ago, or attended his 
>several presentations on Privacy laws with the Registrars and Registries).
>
>You can make whatever judgments you want, but I thought you might want the 
>facts first.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 8:46 PM
>To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] my nomination for ICANN Board
>
>Only a few weeks ago, here is Washington DC, I was on a panel with 
>Michael.  The issue was Privacy and WHOIS, with a twist.  The US Federal 
>Trade Commission wants much more accuracy in the WHOIS database -- as they 
>pursue fraud across borders.
>
>Marilyn Cade proposed her WHOIS Task Force Report as the "right answer" 
>and the FTC was very supportive.  Michael said no.  He said that there 
>were privacy reasons why the data required of domain name registrants 
>should not be globally available to all.  He said that Marilyn's report 
>was not the right answer, and we needed to explore better ways of 
>improving accuracy and privacy.
>
>It was a strong position to take, and he did it with Marilyn on the panel, 
>too.
>kathy
>
>>
>>With all due respect, at a time when the Community was in the midst of the
>>debate on WHOIS (accuracy vs. privacy), Michael Palage produced a document
>>for the .us Policy Council favoring "accuracy".  Please see
>>http://www.neustar.us/policycouncil/palage_whoisdata.pdf and decide for
>>yourself the degree to which Michael supports the views of this constituency.
>>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03

- --=====================_6753147==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<body>
Thank you, Jeff.<br>
You know how much we Europeans tend to consider this issue as important.
The CAPP II and TIA and many other US attitudes on privacy are here
regarded as ... disconcerting.<br><br>
The real issue is: if the WhoIs is of any worth it must work. Overdoing
it will only create a tendency to passive resistance (generalized wrong
information) or to boycott (usage of other TLDs or open roots). Should
the Iraqi war go on (our role here is to consider the DNS issues) I would
fear a destabilization of the whole naming system should the fashion
develop to internationalize and detach oneself from an US image (I
understand that the US airline industry openly discussed that risk with
the USG, we could not be serious if we did not at least consider it prior
to adding to an increasingly questionned/resented system). I think that
relaxing the WhoIS to its minimum necessity is now an absolute commercial
need for NSI.<br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
On 03:37 14/03/03, Neuman, Jeff said:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">I
usually do not step into these debates (since I am not a noncomm member,
but I do like to follow the debates), but as a member of the US Policy
Council, I have to correct a misunderstanding.&nbsp; The US Policy
Council discussed Whois Accuracy for several meetings and then I (along
with the rest of Council) asked Mike to draw up the proposal that was
being discussed.&nbsp; Mike submitted the proposal, but it was in
response to what we (the Council) asked him to and he volunteered to
draft up our thoughts.&nbsp; </font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">I know for a fact that Michael
is always championing Privacy rights (if you heard him speak in front of
the FTC a few weeks ago, or attended his several presentations on Privacy
laws with the Registrars and Registries).&nbsp; </font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">You can make whatever judgments
you want, but I thought you might want the facts first.</font><br>

<dl>
<dd><font face="tahoma" size=2>-----Original Message-----<br>

<dd>From:</b> [email-masked]
[<a href="mailto:[email-masked]" eudora="autourl">mailto:[email-masked]</a>]<br>

<dd>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 13, 2003 8:46 PM<br>

<dd>To:</b> [email-masked]; [email-masked]<br>

<dd>Subject:</b> Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] my nomination for ICANN
Board<br><br>
</font>
<dd><font face="arial" size=2>Only a few weeks ago, here is Washington
DC, I was on a panel with Michael.&nbsp; The issue was Privacy and WHOIS,
with a twist.&nbsp; The US Federal Trade Commission wants much more
accuracy in the WHOIS database -- as they pursue fraud across
borders.&nbsp; <br><br>

<dd>Marilyn Cade proposed her WHOIS Task Force Report as the &quot;right
answer&quot; and the FTC was very supportive.&nbsp; Michael said
no.&nbsp; He said that there were privacy reasons why the data required
of domain name registrants should not be globally available to all.&nbsp;
He said that Marilyn's report was not the right answer, and we needed to
explore better ways of improving accuracy and privacy.&nbsp; <br><br>

<dd>It was a strong position to take, and he did it with Marilyn on the
panel, too. <br>

<dd>kathy<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><br>

<dd>With all due respect, at a time when the Community was in the midst
of the <br>

<dd>debate on WHOIS (accuracy vs. privacy), Michael Palage produced a
document <br>

<dd>for the .us Policy Council favoring &quot;accuracy&quot;.&nbsp;
Please see <br>

<dd><a href="http://www.neustar.us/policycouncil/palage_whoisdata.pdf" eudora="autourl">http://www.neustar.us/policycouncil/palage_whoisdata.pdf</a>
and decide for <br>

<dd>yourself the degree to which Michael supports the views of this constituency.<br>

<dd>_______________________________________________</blockquote><br><br>
</font>
</dl><br>
- ---<br>
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.<br>
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (<a href="http://www.grisoft.com/" eudora="autourl">http://www.grisoft.com</a>).<br>
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03</blockquote></body>
</html>

- --=====================_6753147==.ALT--

- --
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, 14 Mar 2003 07:48:49 +0100
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ccTLD NomCom delegate appointed

Dear Michael,
as Peter, Stuart and Karl reminds us, ccSO does not stand for "country 
code" but for "contracted core" TLDs (or maybe "core cornered", since some 
say GWB is trying his best to help ICANN sign Iraq in getting ".iq" under 
US administration - however that may not help since ".us" has not signed yet).

BTW having the ccTLD rep and President from the same country may help 
saving on the GAC next meeting room there?
jfc

PS. May be could you help us (or Peter?) in reminding us the list of the 
cornered TLDs. And if they are under bi-lateral,  tri-partite or 
quadri-partite (fro example, when the country is under remote administration).

At 22:01 13/03/03, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>of course it would be someone from the tiny minority of ccTLDs who have
>signed contracts promising to obey icann.  Not someone who represents the
>majority of ccTLDs.
>
>A bad sign: Icann is rigging the nomcom
>
>On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
> > http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-12mar03.htm
> >
> > Tony Staley, present Chairman of auDA (.au ccTLD manager) and former
> > Chairman of the Liberal Party of Australia, has been appointed by the
> > Board as ccTLD delegate to the NomCom.
> >
>
>--
>                 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 warm 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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03

- --
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, 14 Mar 2003 09:32:24 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 03:06:12PM -0500,
 John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 16 lines which said:

> That's great, but then how do you pay the electric bill at the end of the
> month?

How does the IETF pay its electric bill at the end of the month? 

You remind me of people in France who said, as late as 1998 or 1999,
that the Internet could not work because it was too free.

- --
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, 14 Mar 2003 09:33:36 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The telephone network and the internet (RE: [ga] ALAC comment s on proposed Bylaws modifications)

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:28:03PM +0100,
 Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 28 lines which said:

> You are right that the fact that we have to pay to read the ITU texts, is
> not central in the discussion. 

It is central. Because it shows, among other things, that the ITU is
still the closed and secret bureaucractic and inefficient monster it
was when it created X400 (and tried to force people to use it).
- --
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 #1632
*************************