Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1674
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, April 23 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1674

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:56:44 +0100
From: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] 6000+ names

Is there anybody that can inform those subscribed to this and other
lists on the legality of this move by the ALAC/ICANN ?

I can not remember signing up for the ALAC 

Abel Wisman

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: 22 April 2003 17:13
To: [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

- --
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: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 01:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: My comment - Was Re: [ga] On the ALAC's Request for Comments

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> ...and the things we still have to do (such as getting
> the archival of comments up and running).

Because the apparently is no place for people to view the comments, here's 
what I sent in...

		--karl--

This message contains various items, all of which concern the "Proposed
Criteria and Accreditation Process for At-Large Structures, and Proposed
Guidelines for Regional At-Large Organizations' (RALOs) Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with ICANN Draft for Public Comment 9 April 2003".

First: Where is the public posting of the comments?  It appears that it
has not been established.

Without there being public posting of comments *while* the discussion
period is open there is no ability for the development of ideas through
the exchange of ideas.  Without the public being able to see the postings
as they occur the whole idea of informed public comment is crippled, if
not rendered a mockery.

Second: The first point under "Proposed minimum criteria for an At-Large
Structure (ALS)" says "...relates to ICANN's technical management
responsibilities for the Internet's domain name and address system..."

I find this linkage of an ALS to "technical" matters to be disingenuous -
ICANN rarely, if ever, deals with technical matters.  ICANN is primarily a
body that deals with legal, social, economic, and business regulatory
matters that have no meaningful relationship to any technical matter
whatsoever.

None of ICANN's other "stakeholders" are obligated to demonstrate that
their concerns or representative organizations arise out of a technical
foundation.  This completely artifical limitation of a "technical"
relationship should not be imposed on those of the internet community or
upon any organizations they chose to represent their views.

Third:  Worthy as many of the criteria are (such as the requirement that
ALS's disclose funding to reveal any conflicts), no similar criteria are
imposed on ICANN's other "stakeholders".  Unless and until such criteria
are imposed equally on all other ICANN "stakeholders" and their
constituent organizations it is unfair to impose these conditions on those
in the internet community or upon any organizations they chose to
represent their views.

		--karl--
		Karl Auerbach
		Elected Director for North America
		Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
		(ICANN)
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+pkyD1vJeUn0EFVoRAk4LAJ9C7Ntnyq3remwSaZ0urei4Ie8LRgCfYJtq
oKXspAR+U3NVwCKBMULqUbI=
=+J1k
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --
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: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 07:56:47 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 0:212 .BIZ..."...regarding the Dot Biz Domain Name renewal business..."

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc02/msg01044.html
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
"...regarding the Dot Biz Domain Name renewal business..."
===

You may not be familiar with the .BIZ Top Level Domain. It has been around since 1995.
It is currently in the Proof-of-Concept phase on the aging, legacy, 32-bit DNS Internet.
The Proof-of-Concept approach was developed long ago to solve the chicken-and-egg
problem that people who do not want any new TLDs used to artificially restrict the marketplace.
They claimed there was no interest in TLDs such as .BIZ, because there were no registrations.
It was very difficult to measure the interest, if registrations were not allowed. The 32-bit DNS
is an ideal place to do market trials, before serious investments are made in 128-bit DNS technology.

Now that investors are better able to measure the interest in .BIZ names, and the willingness of
the owners to RENEW (or not), proper business plans can be prepared to serve the .BIZ market.
There are some common sense guidelines, which any serious investor would consider with respect
to the .BIZ renewal business.

1. The incumbent 32-bit DNS .BIZ Registry operators would NOT be licensed to ALSO provide
the 0:212 128-bit DNS .BIZ Registry services. Common sense should indicate that having a
redundant 128-bit DNS operation provides more stability and better service. That can only come
from having a different operator for the 0:212 128-bit DNS .BIZ Registry services.

2. Any company or person can engage in the .BIZ renewal business. Common sense should indicate
that freedom of speech, free trade, etc. will allow the free market forces to work to allow the .BIZ
owners to be served with BOTH 32-bit DNS services and 128-bit DNS services. Some companies
may package all of the needed solutions into one price to make it easy for the .BIZ owners to renew.

3. Locating the .BIZ owners is again a free market, free speech process. Common sense should
indicate that businesses will use a variety of methods to develop sales and marketing leads. In some
cases, a .BIZ owner may have to be located and encouraged to renew and recover their rightful
ownership in their .BIZ name. Because of all of the "schemes" witnessed during the .BIZ Proof-of-Concept
phase, some .BIZ owners have chosen to wait until the stable 128-bit DNS .BIZ services are offered
to make sure they have a long-term solution, free of speculators attempting to profit via the schemes,
lotteries, etc. used to attract .BIZ owners during the Proof-of-Concept phase.

4. The owner (or owners) of the IN-ADDR.BIZ name plays a key role in the 128-bit DNS services.
Common sense should indicate that some or all of the servers for 128-bit DNS, would be placed in the
0:212 Address Space managed via IN-ADDR.BIZ (similar to IN-ADDR.ARPA for 0:0 .ARPA).
While that is not a requirement, common sense should indicate that birds of a feather will flock together.
People interested in helping to make sure that .BIZ continues to develop (as it has since 1995), would
likely also want to make sure that they have a source for no-cost or low-cost Address Space allocations
which work with BOTH the 43-bit InterNAT and the 128-bit DNS.

=====

Common sense would indicate that people who have been alleged to be engaged in illegal lottories, scams,
and other schemes, who now appear to be running to the U.S. Government (FTC, FBI, etc.), in apparent
attempts to add more confusion to the .BIZ name space marketplace...will find that the free market forces
and the advances of technology will render their lame attempts to game the system to be moot. The collective
intelligence of the .BIZ owners will guide the future of the .BIZ TLD and if there is a market and a future,
then serious companies will likely step forward (without the need for lotteries, schemes, and scams) to serve
the .BIZ owners who just want their names to work in a reliable manner for a fair price.

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info

- --
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: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:34:44 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Evolution of the Cartel

With the issuance of the ERC's Fifth Supplemental Implementation Report we 
are moving a step closer toward discarding all pretense about the true nature 
of ICANN -- the organization is evolving into a true Cartel with a brand new 
trade association for ccTLD administrators (the ccNSO) . 

No longer are other constituent groups entitled to be members of a Supporting 
Organization in the reformed ICANN -- this SO will consist only of ccTLD 
managers.

Step-by-step the rights of user communities are being eradicated within 
ICANN.  It began with the elimination of At-Large directors, it continued 
with the elimination of the democratic mechanisms of the DNSO General 
Assembly, it next proceeded with enhanced voting rights for GNSO "suppliers", 
and it now manifests itself in a new SO that relegates user constituencies to 
the sidelines.

The "Architect" of this Reform, Alejandro Pisanty, has reaffirmed his 
interest in occupying Seat #13 on the ICANN Board of Directors.  Let's see if 
the User Constituencies decide to put him back on the throne... Nominations 
for Seat #13 commence today --   
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc12/msg00249.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: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:01:16 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] 6000+ unique At Large Members?

ICANN really must reassure the Department of Commerce that it is not
bolstering its credibility by falsely claiming interest that it does not in
fact have. The 6000+ must be a typo, or how has Denise arrived at this
number?

Conservatively, that has to be about 5,000 more people than have actually
participated in the At Large debate since the end of the Elections in 2000.
Of those registered at that time, many are now represented in the GNSO
constituencies, on the ALAC itself and in ICANN Staff Offices. Even serious
lobbying in the public fora by the most passionate of activists failed to
raise more than, say, let's be generous, 1,000 at any one time on any list.
So who are these 6,000 unique individuals exactly? Where are they from?

In total there have been 3 Announce lists for the At Large, each grown from
the previous, with a large number of duplications between the lists as
people rolled from one to the next, each shut down by ICANN in turn. ID
verification is an unresolved problem as people joined these lists multiple
times using different names and email addresses. What steps are ICANN Staff
taking to protect the integrity of the lists they are compiling?

Even if the 6000+ number is correct, which is hard to believe, it is a
matter of record that the vast majority were attracted by the opportunity to
vote in an election. ICANN's abandonment of democratic foundations, viewed
as a betrayal, has now manifested itself as zero interest in this new
venture. In reality, prior interest is most definitely not ongoing from the
At Large Lists of the past, especially for an organization that is not
founded in democratic principles.

Did Denise take the original At Large electorate data for 2000 and subtract
the number of emails that bounced on the ALSC Announce List? If so, that
would confirm an impressive 90+% failure rate to foster At Large
participation over the last 3 years.

For the record, the At Large Announce lists amount to these:-

1) Year 2000: At Large Elections List, closed more than 2 years ago.
2) Year 2001: ALSC list, roughly 1,000+ rolled over from earlier list,
numbers declined to a handful of participants when closed more than 1 year
ago.
3) Year 2002: 100+ active participants from the 2001 list rolled over to
ICANNAtLarge.com, originally funded by ICANN Staff under the leadership of
Denise Michel. Membership grew to roughly 1000, of which only a handful
remain active today.

By my calculations, that makes about 60 left, not 6,000.

Regards,
Joanna

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: 22 April 2003 17:13
> To: [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
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:14:51 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Evolution of the Cartel

> No longer are other constituent groups entitled to be members 
> of a Supporting 
> Organization in the reformed ICANN 
<snip>
> it now manifests itself in a new SO that relegates user 
> constituencies to 
> the sidelines.

Which constituency groups should have representation in the CCSO?
Which user groups are being disenfranchised?

Wait, I think I know this one - 

- - local managers/administrators
- - local users
- - local governments

Second - who should get the most say in the structure of this SO?

Oh yeah - 

- - local managers/administrators
- - local users
- - local government

As  a user and provider in the .ca namespace, I feel very well
represented within the new SO. I have a say in the workings of my
government, and I have a say in the workings of my local
manager/administrator. And I'm very happy with the arrangement at a
number of levels. I would urge all actual stakeholders to make sure that
their local involvement is equally productive.

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Get Blog... http://www.byte.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: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:33:47 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Evolution of the Cartel

Danny - We have (and I am sure you have) seen this coming for a long time. 

ICANN is nothing more than a monopoly supporting organization that uses the
excuse that the namespace needs "regulation" as a pretense for shutting other
TLD operators out of their monopolistic cartel.

Internet Citizens are best served by open competition. The more choices that
are available to people, the more there is a chance that they can get out from
under draconian rules and regulations. If users don't like a certain set of rules,
they need to be able to take their business elsewhere. Soon, market forces will
cause those merchants who have non-sense rules to either change or die.

Monpolies shut out fair competiton and do not let this process of "competitive 
natural selection" work. 

Once upon a time, we had only three real TLDs and one entity that was both
the registry and registrar. Then along came ICANN with open competition at
the retail level. Now internet citizens can register domains at a number of 
retailers.

It is now time to move on further down the road of progress

ICANN has created a set of nonsense rules that it claims are "neccessary" for the
orderly operation of the namespace. In reality, most of these rules are not 
neccessary and further examination of these rules expose their true meaning: TO SHUT
OUT OTHER REGISTRY/TLD OPERATORS FROM BEING ABLE TO OPERATE
IN THE INDUSTRY.

ICANN is a cartel of monopolists. These monopolists are the for-profit entities that operate
the current gTLD registries (I dont need to name them - you all know who they are). In 
addition to this, they have allowed WIPO to use the domain registration system as a 
mechanism to police its narrow special interests (to support rich intellectual property 
holders) with the UDRP which everyone knows is just a mechanism by which rich 
interests can steal domains from poor people (those who dont have the millions to 
fight them off with litigation). 

Most members of the Inclusive Namespace do not support imposing any such rules on
people. We beleive that market forces will take care of matters and intellectual property
issues have NO PLACE in the domain registration process.

I know I sound like a broken record on this, but people don't seem to listen: ICANN's
monopoly is just an illusion. All you have to do is make ONE 2-second setting change
on your computer and they have lost all power over you.

ISP's - just replace your root.cache file and all of your customers can be free as well.

The TLDA has been somewhat dormant because not enough people BELEIVE in the 
POSSIBILITY of change. They don't think that it is possible and therefore they don't try.

Anyone who wants to be a part of TLDA and help spread the word, just join the TLDA's
public discussion list at http://mail.tlda.net/mailman/listinfo/public. There isn't much going on
now - like I said - most people are unbeleivers. 

Remember: ICANN'S MONOPOLY IS JUST AN ILLUSION THAT EACH AND
EVERY INTERNET USER CAN BREAK INSTANTLY BY CHANGING THEIR
DNS SETTINGS. 

John Palmer
Chairman - TLDA Board of Directors.
www.tlda.net

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 12:34
Subject: [ga] Evolution of the Cartel

> With the issuance of the ERC's Fifth Supplemental Implementation Report we 
> are moving a step closer toward discarding all pretense about the true nature 
> of ICANN -- the organization is evolving into a true Cartel with a brand new 
> trade association for ccTLD administrators (the ccNSO) . 
> 
> No longer are other constituent groups entitled to be members of a Supporting 
> Organization in the reformed ICANN -- this SO will consist only of ccTLD 
> managers.
> 
> Step-by-step the rights of user communities are being eradicated within 
> ICANN.  It began with the elimination of At-Large directors, it continued 
> with the elimination of the democratic mechanisms of the DNSO General 
> Assembly, it next proceeded with enhanced voting rights for GNSO "suppliers", 
> and it now manifests itself in a new SO that relegates user constituencies to 
> the sidelines.
> 
> The "Architect" of this Reform, Alejandro Pisanty, has reaffirmed his 
> interest in occupying Seat #13 on the ICANN Board of Directors.  Let's see if 
> the User Constituencies decide to put him back on the throne... Nominations 
> for Seat #13 commence today --   
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc12/msg00249.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
> 
> 
> 
- --
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: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:37:19 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Evolution of the Cartel

Re:  << As  a user and provider in the .ca namespace, I feel very well 
represented within the new SO. >>

Spoken like a true representative of the Supplier community that is rapidly 
displacing the users.  I'll bet you were also the first in your constituency 
to endorse Alejandro Pisanty for another term.
- --
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: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:41:32 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Evolution of the Cartel

> Spoken like a true representative of the Supplier community 
> that is rapidly 
> displacing the users. 

Spoken as a CIRA member and Canadian citizen. Sorry Danny, my "role" in
the CCSO continues no matter whom I work for - buy a .ca name - you
might like what you get. I got a say.

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Get Blog... http://www.byte.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: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:21:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] 6000+ unique At Large Members?

the elections list can't be used -- ICANN always took the position that
privacy rules prohibited contacting those people by or for the GA...

On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Joanna Lane wrote:

> ICANN really must reassure the Department of Commerce that it is not
> bolstering its credibility by falsely claiming interest that it does not in
> fact have. The 6000+ must be a typo, or how has Denise arrived at this
> number?
> 
> Conservatively, that has to be about 5,000 more people than have actually
> participated in the At Large debate since the end of the Elections in 2000.
> Of those registered at that time, many are now represented in the GNSO
> constituencies, on the ALAC itself and in ICANN Staff Offices. Even serious
> lobbying in the public fora by the most passionate of activists failed to
> raise more than, say, let's be generous, 1,000 at any one time on any list.
> So who are these 6,000 unique individuals exactly? Where are they from?
> 
> In total there have been 3 Announce lists for the At Large, each grown from
> the previous, with a large number of duplications between the lists as
> people rolled from one to the next, each shut down by ICANN in turn. ID
> verification is an unresolved problem as people joined these lists multiple
> times using different names and email addresses. What steps are ICANN Staff
> taking to protect the integrity of the lists they are compiling?
> 
> Even if the 6000+ number is correct, which is hard to believe, it is a
> matter of record that the vast majority were attracted by the opportunity to
> vote in an election. ICANN's abandonment of democratic foundations, viewed
> as a betrayal, has now manifested itself as zero interest in this new
> venture. In reality, prior interest is most definitely not ongoing from the
> At Large Lists of the past, especially for an organization that is not
> founded in democratic principles.
> 
> Did Denise take the original At Large electorate data for 2000 and subtract
> the number of emails that bounced on the ALSC Announce List? If so, that
> would confirm an impressive 90+% failure rate to foster At Large
> participation over the last 3 years.
> 
> For the record, the At Large Announce lists amount to these:-
> 
> 1) Year 2000: At Large Elections List, closed more than 2 years ago.
> 2) Year 2001: ALSC list, roughly 1,000+ rolled over from earlier list,
> numbers declined to a handful of participants when closed more than 1 year
> ago.
> 3) Year 2002: 100+ active participants from the 2001 list rolled over to
> ICANNAtLarge.com, originally funded by ICANN Staff under the leadership of
> Denise Michel. Membership grew to roughly 1000, of which only a handful
> remain active today.
> 
> By my calculations, that makes about 60 left, not 6,000.
> 
> Regards,
> Joanna
> 
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> > [email-masked]
> > Sent: 22 April 2003 17:13
> > To: [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
> >
> > --
> > 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		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: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:17:54 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [TLDA-Members] Re: [ga] Evolution of the Cartel

www.search.etc is one such engine in existence today

- -----Original Message-----
From: L. Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 15:09
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [TLDA-Members] Re: [ga] Evolution of the Cartel

Danny,

I haven't kept up with who is developing what lately, but I do know that 

there are search engines either in development or already in existance for 

the inclusive name space.  

[. . . ]

Back to search engines...  There will come a time, when demand is there, 

for more search capabilities.  The engines will appear when they are 

needed.  There may be a member or two in TLDA who have them started now, 

AAMOF.

Leah

 

On 23 Apr 2003 at 15:42, [email-masked] wrote:

> Re:  All you have to do is make ONE 2-second setting change

> on your computer and they have lost all power over you.

> 

> John,

> 

> I haven't weighed in on inclusive namespace issues in some time, but I

> would like to express a concern...

> 

> Many users find content by way of search engines.  Unfortunately, I am

> still not aware of any popular search tools that are returning results from

> the inclusive namespace.  If these sites can't readily be found, then they

> are of little value to the vast majority of users, and they are certainly

> of highly limited value to businessmen who launch a commercial website

> precisely because they want to be found.

> 

> Can you advise as to what is being done in your own community to attend to

> this problem?  Or is my assessment of the problem incorrect?

> 

> Best regards,

> Danny 

- --
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: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:30:07 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] 6000+ unique At Large Members?

> From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 3:21 PM

> the elections list can't be used -- ICANN always took the position that
> privacy rules prohibited contacting those people by or for the GA...

That's not true. ICANN Staff approved a one time only use of the original
election list in 2001. Esther and Denise used it to Announce and solicit
interest for the ALSO. The point is that 6000+ did not respond positively to
that initial call, so who are the other 5,000+ being claimed as original At
Large Members? The only explanation I can find is that they are now calling
the Election list the ALSO, the difference being the elimination of
addresses that bounced and the removal of constraints to reuse it.

Joanna

>
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > ICANN really must reassure the Department of Commerce that it is not
> > bolstering its credibility by falsely claiming interest that it
> does not in
> > fact have. The 6000+ must be a typo, or how has Denise arrived at this
> > number?
> >
> > Conservatively, that has to be about 5,000 more people than
> have actually
> > participated in the At Large debate since the end of the
> Elections in 2000.
> > Of those registered at that time, many are now represented in the GNSO
> > constituencies, on the ALAC itself and in ICANN Staff Offices.
> Even serious
> > lobbying in the public fora by the most passionate of activists
> failed to
> > raise more than, say, let's be generous, 1,000 at any one time
> on any list.
> > So who are these 6,000 unique individuals exactly? Where are they from?
> >
> > In total there have been 3 Announce lists for the At Large,
> each grown from
> > the previous, with a large number of duplications between the lists as
> > people rolled from one to the next, each shut down by ICANN in turn. ID
> > verification is an unresolved problem as people joined these
> lists multiple
> > times using different names and email addresses. What steps are
> ICANN Staff
> > taking to protect the integrity of the lists they are compiling?
> >
> > Even if the 6000+ number is correct, which is hard to believe, it is a
> > matter of record that the vast majority were attracted by the
> opportunity to
> > vote in an election. ICANN's abandonment of democratic
> foundations, viewed
> > as a betrayal, has now manifested itself as zero interest in this new
> > venture. In reality, prior interest is most definitely not
> ongoing from the
> > At Large Lists of the past, especially for an organization that is not
> > founded in democratic principles.
> >
> > Did Denise take the original At Large electorate data for 2000
> and subtract
> > the number of emails that bounced on the ALSC Announce List? If so, that
> > would confirm an impressive 90+% failure rate to foster At Large
> > participation over the last 3 years.
> >
> > For the record, the At Large Announce lists amount to these:-
> >
> > 1) Year 2000: At Large Elections List, closed more than 2 years ago.
> > 2) Year 2001: ALSC list, roughly 1,000+ rolled over from earlier list,
> > numbers declined to a handful of participants when closed more
> than 1 year
> > ago.
> > 3) Year 2002: 100+ active participants from the 2001 list rolled over to
> > ICANNAtLarge.com, originally funded by ICANN Staff under the
> leadership of
> > Denise Michel. Membership grew to roughly 1000, of which only a handful
> > remain active today.
> >
> > By my calculations, that makes about 60 left, not 6,000.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Joanna
> >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> > > [email-masked]
> > > Sent: 22 April 2003 17:13
> > > To: [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
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> 		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: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] 6000+ unique At Large Members?

On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> the elections list can't be used -- ICANN always took the position that
> privacy rules prohibited contacting those people by or for the GA...

However section 6330 of the California corporations code - ICANN *is* a
California corporation - requires that "members" have the right to
"Inspect and copy the record of all the members' names, addresses and
voting rights..."

(See 
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=corp&group=06001-07000&file=6330-6338 
)

The only question is whether ICANN's assertion that it has no members is
anything more than a self serving statement that does nothing to diminish
the statutory definition of a "member".  I believe that ICANN has not
avoided the statutory definition.

See my note on all of this at 
http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/platform.htm#full-members

		--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: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:40:56 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] 6000+ unique At Large Members?

Dear Joanna,
I am afraid you are not yet accustomed to the ICANN ways .... ICANN has 
called upon existing groups to join. If you add the GA, the different 
constituencies, the different press people wanting to be informed that way, 
etc. you will probably get a total of 2000 addresses. If you add all the 
people which at a time or another have sent a mail to ICANN or to Denise in 
scanning the archives, you will probably het another 1500. Then add all the 
ISOC addresses they have obtained or which will redirect them. You will 
probably get 5750, what they are entitled to quote as 6000+ soon.
jfc

On 20:01 23/04/03, Joanna Lane said:

>ICANN really must reassure the Department of Commerce that it is not
>bolstering its credibility by falsely claiming interest that it does not in
>fact have. The 6000+ must be a typo, or how has Denise arrived at this
>number?
>
>Conservatively, that has to be about 5,000 more people than have actually
>participated in the At Large debate since the end of the Elections in 2000.
>Of those registered at that time, many are now represented in the GNSO
>constituencies, on the ALAC itself and in ICANN Staff Offices. Even serious
>lobbying in the public fora by the most passionate of activists failed to
>raise more than, say, let's be generous, 1,000 at any one time on any list.
>So who are these 6,000 unique individuals exactly? Where are they from?
>
>In total there have been 3 Announce lists for the At Large, each grown from
>the previous, with a large number of duplications between the lists as
>people rolled from one to the next, each shut down by ICANN in turn. ID
>verification is an unresolved problem as people joined these lists multiple
>times using different names and email addresses. What steps are ICANN Staff
>taking to protect the integrity of the lists they are compiling?
>
>Even if the 6000+ number is correct, which is hard to believe, it is a
>matter of record that the vast majority were attracted by the opportunity to
>vote in an election. ICANN's abandonment of democratic foundations, viewed
>as a betrayal, has now manifested itself as zero interest in this new
>venture. In reality, prior interest is most definitely not ongoing from the
>At Large Lists of the past, especially for an organization that is not
>founded in democratic principles.
>
>Did Denise take the original At Large electorate data for 2000 and subtract
>the number of emails that bounced on the ALSC Announce List? If so, that
>would confirm an impressive 90+% failure rate to foster At Large
>participation over the last 3 years.
>
>For the record, the At Large Announce lists amount to these:-
>
>1) Year 2000: At Large Elections List, closed more than 2 years ago.
>2) Year 2001: ALSC list, roughly 1,000+ rolled over from earlier list,
>numbers declined to a handful of participants when closed more than 1 year
>ago.
>3) Year 2002: 100+ active participants from the 2001 list rolled over to
>ICANNAtLarge.com, originally funded by ICANN Staff under the leadership of
>Denise Michel. Membership grew to roughly 1000, of which only a handful
>remain active today.
>
>By my calculations, that makes about 60 left, not 6,000.
>
>Regards,
>Joanna
>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> > [email-masked]
> > Sent: 22 April 2003 17:13
> > To: [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
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.463 / Virus Database: 262 - Release Date: 17/03/03

- --
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1674
*************************