Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1672
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, April 22 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1672

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

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:12:01 -0400
From: elliot noss <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] On the ALAC's Request for Comments

.....and all that just to keep the INEG Group from qualifying.

On Monday, April 21, 2003, at 08:24 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> This moronic plan surely must have been conceived by the feeble-minded 
> idiots
> and stooges that participated as members of the At-Large Assistance 
> Group --
> it has all the hallmarks of a document hand-written by ICANN staff and
> rubber-stamped by the ICANN Board's hand-picked puppets (who 
> apparently are
> too ignorant or too naive to understand that they are only being used 
> as a
> conveniently pliable tool to promote the fiction that ICANN is in 
> compliance
> with task number nine under the Memorandum of Understanding with the 
> U.S.
> Department of Commerce).
>
> Having witnessed the complete and total elimination of all public
> representation on the ICANN Board these fools on the At-Large Advisory
> Committee now expect the Internet community to rally around a top-down 
> effort
> designed to asininely further complicate communication between 
> individual
> users and members of the ICANN Board.
>
> In the past, any individual user could write a letter to ICANN and feel
> confident that they would be ignored (as it has become rather apparent 
> that
> ICANN only bothers to pay attention to those special-interest groups 
> it deems
> to be "stakeholders" in its Cartel).  Now one has to do all of the 
> following
> in order to achieve the same outcome:
>
> 1.  First one must find a noncommercial entity to join.
> 2.  Next, one needs to convince the members of this non-profit group 
> that
> they must post on their website information that pertains to ICANN
> activities/issues, and further convince them to offer Internet-based
> discussion mechanisms so that such activities/issues may be evaluated.
> 3.  Then it next becomes necessary to convince this noncommercial 
> group that
> they must provide information on the group's general funding sources 
> to the
> ALAC (so that this Committee of pseudo-accountants/analysts can 
> ostensibly
> come to a determination as to whether the non-profit has commitments or
> obligations that would conflict with its ability to involve and 
> represent
> individual constituents' interests).
> 4.  At this point, one must now confirm that somewhere on the 
> non-profit
> group's website is an articulation of its non-commercial goals and 
> structure,
> a description of constituent group(s), its working mechanisms, 
> leadership,
> and contact(s) -- unlike the ALAC which has no posted working 
> mechanisms, an
> incomplete structure, no contact data on its discussion list (the 
> e-mail
> addresses of all the "representatives" are replaced with XXXXX), no 
> working
> public forum and no publicly archived public comments.
> 5.  Then, the non-profit must be convinced to submit in electronic 
> form a
> completed application and to provide the ALAC any further requested
> documentation (which may include references, documents to verify 
> general
> funding sources, documents on the organization's leadership and 
> operations,
> and documents that demonstrate the identity of all their individual
> constituents -- has anyone on this Committee ever heard of the concept 
> of
> privacy?).  The non-profit must also be convinced that it must 
> necessarily
> subject itself to the prospect of further possible interviews 
> regarding the
> organization's contact(s) and must potentially provide other as yet
> unspecified information about the organization.
> 6.  If the ALAC then decides to designate this organization as an 
> eligible
> "structure", the user that wishes to communicate with the ICANN Board 
> must
> next find at least three other such structures (that must be located 
> in at
> least two countries) and must persuade these structures to form a 
> regional
> organization.
> 7.  In order to form this regional body, the user must then convince 
> these
> other organizations to spend months and months developing a set of 
> bylaws
> that all organizations can agree upon, and then the user must further
> convince each non-profit organization to share in the financial burden 
> of
> establishing this new umbrella organization -- that means dedicating
> financial resources for the purpose of incorporation, and setting 
> aside funds
> to provide for an organizational website, Secretariat services, and 
> such.
> 8.  The user must also convince each such non-profit organization that 
> it's
> limited funds should be applied to this glorious experiment instead of
> remitting such limited funds as the membership fee for direct 
> participation
> in ICANN's Non-Commercial constituency (which at least gets to 
> participate in
> the election of an ICANN director).
> 9.  If the regional organization is finally created, then the user 
> must await
> the formulation of a formal Memorandum of Understanding with ICANN 
> which
> consecrates this effort...  (for some reason, this Committee of the
> Mentally-Challenged seems to think that the At-Large is so gullible 
> that it
> will willingly enter into a contract with ICANN in the full knowledge 
> that
> ICANN has broken all of its prior promises, ignored the consensus 
> conclusions
> of its own Blue Ribbon Panel (the ALSC) and has gleefully wiped out 
> all user
> representation on its Board).
> 10.  Finally, if this last stage is achieved, the user can then send 
> his
> comments to the two members of the ALAC that his regional organization 
> has
> elected.  Those two members will then transmit his message to the full
> committee that will next proceed to filter, mangle, distort, and 
> re-write his
> comments (after sincerely thanking him for his input).  The ALAC will 
> then
> transmit a non-binding "recommendation" to the Board that in turn will 
> thank
> the committee for its efforts before proceeding to ignore the comments
> received.
>
> As a user, I don't need this degree of structural bullshit just to
> communicate my sentiments directly to ICANN.  The problem is not the 
> lack of
> a structured vehicle to serve as a communications conduit... the 
> problem has
> always been that the Board has been comprised of members that can't be
> bothered to listen to the voice of the public that they purportedly 
> serve.
>
> This ALAC plan sucks.  Unfortunately, the spineless worms on the 
> Committee
> will never advocate for substantive change.  Instead, they will meekly 
> accept
> the bylaws as written and will continue to pretend to "represent" the
> At-Large.  All hail the Company Union.
> --
> 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: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:18:20 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] On the ALAC's Request for Comments

Elliot and all former DNSO GA members,

  INEGroup is not interested in the present form of the ALAC.  We
are on record in that position.  We are on record as recognizing that
the ALAC is devoid of openness, and transparency, has thus far
to make available it's full archives of it's so called ML, is basically
a creature of Ester Dyson and Denise Michel, and is as Danny
rightly points out not representative in any legitimate way of
stakeholders/users....  Basically it is a "Club" not an organization..

elliot noss wrote:

> .....and all that just to keep the INEG Group from qualifying.
>
> On Monday, April 21, 2003, at 08:24 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > This moronic plan surely must have been conceived by the feeble-minded
> > idiots
> > and stooges that participated as members of the At-Large Assistance
> > Group --
> > it has all the hallmarks of a document hand-written by ICANN staff and
> > rubber-stamped by the ICANN Board's hand-picked puppets (who
> > apparently are
> > too ignorant or too naive to understand that they are only being used
> > as a
> > conveniently pliable tool to promote the fiction that ICANN is in
> > compliance
> > with task number nine under the Memorandum of Understanding with the
> > U.S.
> > Department of Commerce).
> >
> > Having witnessed the complete and total elimination of all public
> > representation on the ICANN Board these fools on the At-Large Advisory
> > Committee now expect the Internet community to rally around a top-down
> > effort
> > designed to asininely further complicate communication between
> > individual
> > users and members of the ICANN Board.
> >
> > In the past, any individual user could write a letter to ICANN and feel
> > confident that they would be ignored (as it has become rather apparent
> > that
> > ICANN only bothers to pay attention to those special-interest groups
> > it deems
> > to be "stakeholders" in its Cartel).  Now one has to do all of the
> > following
> > in order to achieve the same outcome:
> >
> > 1.  First one must find a noncommercial entity to join.
> > 2.  Next, one needs to convince the members of this non-profit group
> > that
> > they must post on their website information that pertains to ICANN
> > activities/issues, and further convince them to offer Internet-based
> > discussion mechanisms so that such activities/issues may be evaluated.
> > 3.  Then it next becomes necessary to convince this noncommercial
> > group that
> > they must provide information on the group's general funding sources
> > to the
> > ALAC (so that this Committee of pseudo-accountants/analysts can
> > ostensibly
> > come to a determination as to whether the non-profit has commitments or
> > obligations that would conflict with its ability to involve and
> > represent
> > individual constituents' interests).
> > 4.  At this point, one must now confirm that somewhere on the
> > non-profit
> > group's website is an articulation of its non-commercial goals and
> > structure,
> > a description of constituent group(s), its working mechanisms,
> > leadership,
> > and contact(s) -- unlike the ALAC which has no posted working
> > mechanisms, an
> > incomplete structure, no contact data on its discussion list (the
> > e-mail
> > addresses of all the "representatives" are replaced with XXXXX), no
> > working
> > public forum and no publicly archived public comments.
> > 5.  Then, the non-profit must be convinced to submit in electronic
> > form a
> > completed application and to provide the ALAC any further requested
> > documentation (which may include references, documents to verify
> > general
> > funding sources, documents on the organization's leadership and
> > operations,
> > and documents that demonstrate the identity of all their individual
> > constituents -- has anyone on this Committee ever heard of the concept
> > of
> > privacy?).  The non-profit must also be convinced that it must
> > necessarily
> > subject itself to the prospect of further possible interviews
> > regarding the
> > organization's contact(s) and must potentially provide other as yet
> > unspecified information about the organization.
> > 6.  If the ALAC then decides to designate this organization as an
> > eligible
> > "structure", the user that wishes to communicate with the ICANN Board
> > must
> > next find at least three other such structures (that must be located
> > in at
> > least two countries) and must persuade these structures to form a
> > regional
> > organization.
> > 7.  In order to form this regional body, the user must then convince
> > these
> > other organizations to spend months and months developing a set of
> > bylaws
> > that all organizations can agree upon, and then the user must further
> > convince each non-profit organization to share in the financial burden
> > of
> > establishing this new umbrella organization -- that means dedicating
> > financial resources for the purpose of incorporation, and setting
> > aside funds
> > to provide for an organizational website, Secretariat services, and
> > such.
> > 8.  The user must also convince each such non-profit organization that
> > it's
> > limited funds should be applied to this glorious experiment instead of
> > remitting such limited funds as the membership fee for direct
> > participation
> > in ICANN's Non-Commercial constituency (which at least gets to
> > participate in
> > the election of an ICANN director).
> > 9.  If the regional organization is finally created, then the user
> > must await
> > the formulation of a formal Memorandum of Understanding with ICANN
> > which
> > consecrates this effort...  (for some reason, this Committee of the
> > Mentally-Challenged seems to think that the At-Large is so gullible
> > that it
> > will willingly enter into a contract with ICANN in the full knowledge
> > that
> > ICANN has broken all of its prior promises, ignored the consensus
> > conclusions
> > of its own Blue Ribbon Panel (the ALSC) and has gleefully wiped out
> > all user
> > representation on its Board).
> > 10.  Finally, if this last stage is achieved, the user can then send
> > his
> > comments to the two members of the ALAC that his regional organization
> > has
> > elected.  Those two members will then transmit his message to the full
> > committee that will next proceed to filter, mangle, distort, and
> > re-write his
> > comments (after sincerely thanking him for his input).  The ALAC will
> > then
> > transmit a non-binding "recommendation" to the Board that in turn will
> > thank
> > the committee for its efforts before proceeding to ignore the comments
> > received.
> >
> > As a user, I don't need this degree of structural bullshit just to
> > communicate my sentiments directly to ICANN.  The problem is not the
> > lack of
> > a structured vehicle to serve as a communications conduit... the
> > problem has
> > always been that the Board has been comprised of members that can't be
> > bothered to listen to the voice of the public that they purportedly
> > serve.
> >
> > This ALAC plan sucks.  Unfortunately, the spineless worms on the
> > Committee
> > will never advocate for substantive change.  Instead, they will meekly
> > accept
> > the bylaws as written and will continue to pretend to "represent" the
> > At-Large.  All hail the Company Union.
> > --
> > 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

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: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 22:20:03 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 0:167     CHAT...With the InterNAT, all of the technology is in place to launch your own Address Space...

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
> 1.  First one must find a noncommercial entity to join.
> 2.  Next, one needs to convince the members of this non-profit group that...
> 3.  Then it next becomes necessary to convince this noncommercial group that... 
> 4.  At this point, one must now confirm that somewhere on the non-profit... 
> 5.  Then, the non-profit must be convinced to submit in electronic form a... 
> 6.  If the ALAC then decides to designate this organization as an eligible... 
> 7.  In order to form this regional body, the user must then convince these... 
> 8.  The user must also convince each such non-profit organization that it's...
> 9.  If the regional organization is finally created, then the user must await... 
> 10.  Finally, if this last stage is achieved, the user can then send his... 
> comments to the two members of the ALAC that his regional organization has 
> elected...

With the InterNAT, all of the technology is in place to launch your own Address Space
to compete with the 0:0 .ARPA I* society. You will never change them. Their game is rigged.
You are better off routing around them.

As long as people use the 0:0 .ARPA Address Space, they will be tied to the DOMAIN NAMES
under IN-ADDR.ARPA.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg09193.html
ICANN SUPPORT $188,480.00
=================
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
063/8   Apr 97   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net) 
064/8   Jul 99   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net) 
065/8   Jul 00   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
066/8   Jul 00   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
067/8   May 01   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
068/8   Jun 01   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
069/8   Aug 02   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
199/8   May 93   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
204/8   Mar 94   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
205/8   Mar 94   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
206/8   Apr 95   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
207/8   Nov 95   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
208/8   Apr 96   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
209/8   Jun 96   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
216/8   Apr 98   ARIN                                (whois.arin.net)
===========================================
$12,565 per /8 per year....?
===========================================================

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
http://www.New.Chat
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
0:167     CHAT

- --
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, 21 Apr 2003 23:22:53 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 1:79 CANADA...http://www.Montreal.Canada...IN-ADDR.CA exists...

http://www.Montreal.Canada

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-21apr03.htm

IN-ADDR.CA exists...[1]

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
1:79 CANADA

[1] ; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> in-addr.ca any
;; global options:  printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 37674
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 4, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;in-addr.ca. IN ANY

;; ANSWER SECTION:
in-addr.ca. 43200 IN A 192.73.5.106
in-addr.ca. 43200 IN SOA hosting.webnames.ca. postmaster.webnames.ca. 5369 21600 10800 4233600 3600
in-addr.ca. 43200 IN NS ns1.webnames.ca.
in-addr.ca. 43200 IN NS ns2.webnames.ca.

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
in-addr.ca. 43200 IN NS ns2.webnames.ca.
in-addr.ca. 43200 IN NS ns1.webnames.ca.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns1.webnames.ca. 12468 IN A 192.73.5.104
ns2.webnames.ca. 12468 IN A 192.73.5.105

;; Query time: 462 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.0.1#53(192.168.0.1)
;; WHEN: Mon Apr 21 23:02:21 2003
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 204

- --
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: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:50:16 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] On the ALAC's Request for Comments

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:24:03 EDT, you wrote:

>This moronic plan surely must have been conceived by the feeble-minded idiots 
>and stooges that participated as members of the At-Large Assistance Group -- 

Danny,

thank you for pointing out all the difficulties in the tasks that have
been given to us, and the things we still have to do (such as getting
the archival of comments up and running). However, I have to stress
that at this stage proposals focused on the subject of the draft - the
criteria for accreditation of At Large Structures and Regional At
Large Organizations - would be more productive.

Personally, I appreciate your input and your ability to discover and
remark valuable facts. I think you could bring an outstanding
contribution to the ALAC/RALO mechanism, if you decided to participate
to this process constructively. So I hope that you will change your
mind on it.

Regards,
- -- 
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: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:06:09 +0200
From: "DNSO SECRETARIAT" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GNSO Council minutes Rio de Janeiro meeting March 25, 2003

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

ICANN/DNSO

       GNSO Council Rio de Janeiro Meeting on 25 March 2003 - minutes

1 April 2003.

Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030325.GNSORiomeeting-agenda.html

List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C.
Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C.
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C. (Remote participation by
telephone)
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC
Ken Stubbs - Registrars' constituency
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars' constituency
Thomas Keller - Registrars' constituency
Jeff Neuman- gTLD
Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD (Remote participation by telephone)
Cary Karp - gTLD (Remote participation proxy to Jeff Neuman)
Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies
proxy to Laurence Djolakian
Laurence Djolakian - Intellectual Property Interests .
J. Scott Evans - Intellectual Property Interests C. - (Remote participation,
proxy to Laurence Djolakian)
Milton Mueller- Non Commercial users C.
Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C.
Gabriel Pineiro - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies

Thomas Roessler- Interim At-Large Committee Liaison (ALAC) (non voting)

Wendy Seltzer - Interim At-Large Committee Liaison (ALAC) for matters
relating to gTLDs (non voting)

12 Council Members physically present, 4 Council members participated by
telephone

Louis Touton - ICANN General Counsel

Charles Shaban - CBUC replacement for Philip Sheppard during elections,
remote participation for 10 mins. since no ratification of the vote for
Board seat 14

Steve Metalitz - WHOIS Task Force representative for Intellectual Property
Interests C. remote participation by telephone.

Recording of the meeting by the ICANN technical staff
Part 1, Webcast GNSO Rio
Part 2, Webcast GNSO Rio
Part 3, Webcast GNSO Rio
Transcription of meeting:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030325.GNSOrio-captioning.html

Quorum present at 2:00 local time in Rio de Janeiro

Bruce Tonkin chaired this Council meeting

   * Item 1: Approval of the Agenda
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030325.GNSORiomeeting-agenda.html

     Bruce Tonkin announced that the e-mail vote on ICANN Board seat #14
     would not be ratified at this meeting, and proposed that a Council
     teleconference would be called in 14 days to ratify this after General
     Counsel had given an opinion.

     Bruce Tonkin stated that there would be combined discussion of the
     agenda items 8 and 9
     Item 8. Issues reports from the WHOIS task force - Marilyn Cade/Tony
     Harris
     - Whois issues report on privacy PDF:
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030311.WhoisTF-privacy-issues.pdf
     Whois Issues Report - Additional Accuracy Issues

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030311.WhoisTF-remaining-accuracy-issues.ht
ml

     Item 9. Issues report on privacy from the non-commercial constituency -
     Milton Meuller
     for decision for initiating policy action to privacy report
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030310.Whois-PrivacyIssuesReport.pdf

     Marilyn Cade proposed a resolution recognizing the work of Stuart Lynn.

   * Decision 1. Agenda approved

   * Item 2: Summary of last meetings:
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030220.GNSOteleconf-minutes.htm
     Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Laurence
     Djolakian

     Motion unanimously carried by voting members present and proxies. No
     vote from Gabriel Pineiro (absent, no proxy) Milton Mueller abstained.

     Decision 2: Minutes of the last meeting adopted.

   * Item 3: Welcome new members of the GNSO Council and thank outgoing
     members
     Jeff Neuman replaces Roger Cochetti, Registry constituency
     Thomas Keller replaces Philipp Grabensee, Registrar constituency
     Milton Mueller replaces Harold Feld, Non-commercial Users constituency
     Gabriel Piñeiro replaces Erick Iriarte Ahon, Non-commercial Users
     constituency

     Bruce Tonkin thanked all the outgoing Council members for their work on
     the council and welcomed the new members

   * Item 4: Ratify email vote on ICANN Board seat #14 resolution
     Deferred until next Council meeting

   * Item 5: Discuss any adjustments to process for Board seat #13

     Bruce Tonkin proposed, seconded by Ken Stubbs:
     - that the Council archives, which had been closed during the election
     period, be reopened to the public and that a separate archive and
     mailing list be created for the purpose of managing elections going
     forward.

     Motion unanimously adopted by voting members present and proxies. No
     vote from Gabriel Pineiro (absent, no proxy)

     Decision 3: Motion adopted, council archives reopened and a separate
     mailing list and archive created for managing elections going forward.

   * Item 6: Presentation from Chair (Vittorio Bertola) Interim At Large
     Advisory Committee (ALAC)
     http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20jan03.htm
     on the objectives of the ALAC and current policy concerns

     Vittorio Bertola made the following presentation
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/Rio_ALAC_introduction.ppt
     where he introduced the committee, identified members in the audience
     and active users and organizations that want to participate.
     The move was welcomed and encouraged by Bruce Tonkin, the Council
     Chair, Milton Mueller and Marilyn Cade.
     Bruce Tonkin thanked Vittorio Bertola for his presentation.

   * Item 7:Deletes Task Force report - Jordyn Buchanan
     http://gnso.icann.org/dnso/notes/20030211.DeletesTF-initial-report.html

     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030323.DeletesTF-final-report.html

     Jordyn Buchanan, participating remotely by telephone, presented the
     Deletes Task Force Final report, published on 23 March on the DNSO
     website

     Bruce Tonkin thanked Jordyn Buchanan for his presentation.
     It was noted that for the next previously scheduled Council meeting in
     April the recommendations of the report would be put up for vote by the
     Council.

   * Items 8 and 9:
     Issues reports from the WHOIS task force - Marilyn Cade/Tony Harris
     - Whois issues report on privacy PDF:
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030311.WhoisTF-privacy-issues.pdf
     - Whois Issues Report - Additional Accuracy Issues

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030311.WhoisTF-remaining-accuracy-issues.ht
ml

     Issues report on privacy from the non-commercial constituency - Milton
     Mueller
     - for decision for initiating policy action to privacy report
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030310.Whois-PrivacyIssuesReport.pdf

     Bruce Tonkin explained the process which would be put to the vote:
     The first step of the process is a staff report.
     Given that a staff report will take time to produce, it was recommended
     that in parallel the members of the Council consult with their
     constituencies regarding possible members of the task force if the
     Council decided to create one.

     The WHOIS Issues report on additional accuracy issues was presented by
     Marilyn Cade who asked WHOIS Task Force members in the audience to
     identify themselves and welcomed Steve Metalitz who was participating
     by telephone.

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030311.WhoisTF-remaining-accuracy-issues.ht
ml

     Louis Touton commented on the 15 day period and said that he would post
     a "Registrar Advisory Concerning the '15-day Period' in Whois Accuracy
     Requirements".
     http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr03.htm

     Milton Mueller moved, seconded by Jeff Neuman:
     To schedule the discussion of this topic on additional accuracy issues
     for six months after the implementation of the current WHOIS
     recommendations before the Board or until completion of the policy
     development process on privacy, whichever comes first.

     Votes: 20 votes supporting the motion, 3 abstentions from the
     Intellectual Property Interests constituency, no vote from Gabriel
     Pineiro (absent, no proxy)

     Decision 4:
     Schedule the discussion of this topic on additional accuracy issues for
     six months after the implementation of the current WHOIS
     recommendations before the Board or until completion of the policy
     development process on privacy, whichever comes first.

   * Item 8 & 9 - Whois issues report on privacy PDF:
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030311.WhoisTF-privacy-issues.pdf
     WhoisTF-remaining-accuracy-issues.html Issues report on privacy from
     the non-commercial constituency - Milton Mueller
     - for decision for initiating policy action to privacy report
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030310.Whois-PrivacyIssuesReport.pdf

     Bruce Tonkin said that the two reports would be considered together.
     Marilyn Cade and Milton Mueller presented the privacy reports.

     Bruce Tonkin seconded by Jeff Neuman moved
     To initiate the next step in the policy development process that next
     step being to ask the staff manager to produce an issues report on
     Privacy with a 45 day time line.
     To request the members of the Council to consult with their
     constituencies to identify possible candidates for a task force.

     Unanimous support for the motion.

     Decision 5:
     To initiate the next step in the policy development process and ask the
     Staff Manager to produce an issues report on Privacy with a 45 day time
     line.
     To request the members of the Council to consult with their
     constituencies to identify possible candidates for a possible task
     force.

     It was suggested to request the staff manager to use the two documents
     before the Council to produce an issues report.
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030311.WhoisTF-privacy-issues.pdf
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030310.Whois-PrivacyIssuesReport.pdf

     Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Marilyn Cade, moved that:
     - The WHOIS task force complete the administrative work
     - The WHOIS task force list remain open until the administrative work
     is complete
     - A Period of two weeks be allowed for this
     - The WHOIS task force be closed as from May 1, 2003

     Votes: 21 votes in favour, Milton Mueller against, Chun Eung Hwi
     abstained, no vote from Gabriel Pineiro (absent, no proxy)

     Decision 6:
     Continue WHOIS task force until completion of administrative work. The
     WHOIS task force be closed as from May 1, 2003

     Item 10: Report from gtld committee - Philip Sheppard
     progress to provide a recommendation "on whether to structure the
     evolution of the generic top level namespace and, if so, how to do so."

     Philip Sheppard reported on the progress made by the committee
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030307.gTLDs-committee.htm

     He stated that comments had been received from The Non Commercial Users
     constituency, Milton Mueller, the Commercial and Business Users
     Constituency and the Intellectual Property Interests Constituency.
     Milton Mueller commented that he was in favour of unstructuring the
     name space while Cary Karp noted that there should be structure.

     Bruce Tonkin thanked Philip Sheppard for the progress report.

     Item 12: GNSO Budget
     - resolution to appoint Roger Cochetti as Chair of the Budget committee

     This situation arises from an extension of an existing arrangement
     related to the DNSO Budget Process set by the DNSO. It was expected to
     end on the 30th.December 2002 when the DNSO financial year ended. That
     was extended as the Council needed to operate under GNSO control until
     the middle of the year when the new budget was set by ICANN and ICANN
     would be taking over the financial responsibility of the GNSO.

     Bruce Tonkin proposed, seconded by Jeff Neuman:
     That Roger Cochetti be appointed to Chair the interim GNSO Budget
     committee, specifying the time frame of 30 days following July 1, 2003,
     this being an extension of an existing arrangement related to the DNSO.
     That Roger Cochetti be legally delegated to the GNSO Budget committee
     to sign off on invoices that are paid by ICANN.

     Vote: Motion unanimously adopted by voting members present and proxies.
     No vote from Gabriel Pineiro (absent, no proxy)

     Decision 7:
     Roger Cochetti to continue as GNSO Budget committee chair and legally
     delegated to the GNSO Budget committee to sign off on invoices by
     ICANN.

     Ken Stubbs thanked Roger Cochetti for serving as Chair of the Budget
     committee. Marilyn Cade thanked Roger Cochetti as well and added that
     it should be mentioned as an interim measure that a non-Council member
     would take on the role of GNSO Budget committee chair.

     - update on financial position
     Roger Cochetti agreed to continue as GNSO Budget Committee Chair for
     the period ending 30 days after July 1, 2003.
     Roger Cochetti reported that the GNSO budget year ended in December,
     unlike the ICANN financial year that ends in June.
     At the end of 2002, $37,000 remained with no obligations.
     The ISPCP Constituency paid the sum of 5000 Euros which would be taken
     into consideration as the 2003 constituency contributions. (These do
     not yet appear on the March, 2003 budget recapitulation.)
     The spending thus far for the Council has been about $20,000 to
     $25,000.
     that compares with the cash balance of about $10,000, lower than it
     should be, reflecting constituencies have not paid their dues except
     for the ISPCP Constituency which paid the sum of 5000 Euros.
     Roger Cochetti concluded by reminding the constituencies that timely
     payment of dues was critical to the Council not running into a cash
     problem.

     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030407.GNSO_Recap.htm

     - resolution to adjust remuneration for the GNSO Secretariat function
     from US$3200 per month to US$4500 per month, effective from 1 April
     2003

     In the light of the increased work load brought about by the GNSO
     Council activities Bruce Tonkin proposed the motion:
     to adjust remuneration for the GNSO Secretariat function from US$3200
     per month to US$4500 per month, effective from 1 April 2003.

     Vote: Motion carried by voting members present and proxies. No vote
     from Gabriel Pineiro (absent, no proxy)

     Decision 8: adjust remuneration for the GNSO Secretariat function from
     US$3200 per month to US$4500 per month, effective from 1 April 2003.

     - discussion relating to ICANN support required for GNSO
     - one full-time administrator - manage teleconference, votes, and
     minutes of council and task forces, make meeting arrangements,
     administer GNSO website
     - one full-time policy officer - develop issues reports, and edit
     reports for GNSO policy process

     Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Ken Stubbs proposed the motion:
     that the GNSO Council request 2 full time resources from ICANN to
     support the GNSO activities.
     that the GNSO Chair would forward the request into the ICANN budget
     process.

     Vote: Votes: 21 votes in favour, Milton Mueller and Chun Eung Hwi
     abstained, no vote from Gabriel Pineiro (absent, no proxy)

     Decision 9: the GNSO Council requests 2 full time resources from ICANN
     to support the GNSO activities and the GNSO Chair would forward the
     request into the ICANN budget process.

   * Item 13 AOB.

     Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Ken Stubbs, proposed
     a motion of sincere thanks on behalf of the GNSO Council to Stuart
     Lynn, the outgoing ICANN Chief Executive Officer, for the work he had
     done, particularly the initiation of and all efforts that had gone into
     the Evolution and Reform Process.

     Decision 10: Formally thank Stuart Lynn for his contribution and convey
     that to the Board at the Public Forum on March 26, 2003.

     Thomas Roessler, a non voting ALAC representative, supported the
     motion.

     Bruce Tonkin closed the meeting thanking all present for their
     participation.

     The meeting ended at 17:10 local time in Rio de Janeiro

     Next Council teleconference Thursday, April 17, 2003 at 14:00 UTC

See all past agendas and minutes at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/2002calendardnso.html
and calendar of the GNSO Council meetings at
http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Information from:  © GNSO  Council

- --
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: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:12:34 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] 6000+ names

Just posted:

ICANN's technical staff is working on combining past At-Large announce lists
(with 6000 + names) for the ALAC's use and an announce list
subscribe/un-subscribe mechanism for the ALAC's website.  I expect this to
be operational very soon.

Denise

http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00189.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 #1672
*************************