Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1710
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, May 30 2003            Volume 01 : Number 1710

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

Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 19:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?

On Wed, 28 May 2003 [email-masked] wrote:

> Having read the "ALAC responses to comments received on the proposed 
> criteria, process and guidelines", I have only question:  Was ICANN Staff member 
> Denise Michel the author of all of these responses?
> 
> http://alac.icann.org/correspondence/responses-21may03.htm

I agree that the answers are more than wimpy.

For example, the answer to L. Gallegos, in my reading, amounts to a
statement that the ALAC, in its paternalistic way, knows best how people
should talk to one another and that it's either the ALAC way or the
highway.

And when I suggested that the ALAC impose no requirement on at-large
members unless equivalent requirements are imposed on members of the SO's,
the ALAC said (paraphrase) "We can't control the SOs".  That's not an
answer, it is an excuse.  The ALAC could have said "We will advocate that
position to the Board" and in the meantime "we will not impose any
requirement that is not imposed on SO's".

The old IDNO and other nascent assemblies in ICANN were dismissed as being
non-representative because they could not demonstrate thousands and
thousands of active, unified members.  I'd suggest that the ALAC's failure
to garner more than a trivial number of comments (even after extending the
period for such comments) is indicative that if those other assemblies
were in fact disconnected from "the public" that the ALAC is even further
disconnected and isolated.

The ALAC lacks the gumption to do what is right; rather it seems intent on
doing what is convenient.

		--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: Thu, 29 May 2003 10:42:33 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?

It's simple.

ALAC doesn't speak for Internet Users.

It speaks for the ICANN agenda.

ALAC is an instrument of the ICANN Board, developed to constrain, contain,
and marginalise the At Large movement, which would insist on democratic
accountability being brought to bear on the ICANN Board.

ALAC has been developed "top down" and it lacks the mandate of ordinary
internet users.

Therefore, it is truer to say that ALAC is representative of the ICANN
Board. It does not represent Internet Users. No-one has asked for it. No-one
has voted for it.

It is perfectly obvious that the defence of User interests, and the
development of an adequate 'Watchdog' role on ICANN's machinations, requires
a worldwide structure which is *independent* of ICANN and organised
externally.

At present ALAC is not defending Users. It is acquiescing. ICANN has
appointed its 'representatives'. ICANN (via Denise Michel) writes its
responses.

ALAC is a sham.

Richard Henderson

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 3:59 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?

> On Wed, 28 May 2003 [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Having read the "ALAC responses to comments received on the proposed
> > criteria, process and guidelines", I have only question:  Was ICANN
Staff member
> > Denise Michel the author of all of these responses?
> >
> > http://alac.icann.org/correspondence/responses-21may03.htm
>
> I agree that the answers are more than wimpy.
>
> For example, the answer to L. Gallegos, in my reading, amounts to a
> statement that the ALAC, in its paternalistic way, knows best how people
> should talk to one another and that it's either the ALAC way or the
> highway.
>
> And when I suggested that the ALAC impose no requirement on at-large
> members unless equivalent requirements are imposed on members of the SO's,
> the ALAC said (paraphrase) "We can't control the SOs".  That's not an
> answer, it is an excuse.  The ALAC could have said "We will advocate that
> position to the Board" and in the meantime "we will not impose any
> requirement that is not imposed on SO's".
>
> The old IDNO and other nascent assemblies in ICANN were dismissed as being
> non-representative because they could not demonstrate thousands and
> thousands of active, unified members.  I'd suggest that the ALAC's failure
> to garner more than a trivial number of comments (even after extending the
> period for such comments) is indicative that if those other assemblies
> were in fact disconnected from "the public" that the ALAC is even further
> disconnected and isolated.
>
> The ALAC lacks the gumption to do what is right; rather it seems intent on
> doing what is convenient.
>
> --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
>
>

- --
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, 29 May 2003 07:58:47 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 4:46 LA   "Los Angeles is the world's first and only city to receive its own unique Internet address; .la. " ?

http://www.la

"NOTICE: dotLA is now in a 'sunrise period.' Domains may now be registered and renewed, and payments are being processed, however
new .la domains won't actually begin to work until June 9th, 2003.
Los Angeles is the world's first and only city to receive its own unique Internet address; .la. "

=====================

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
4:46 LA

- --
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, 29 May 2003 15:37:32 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lo=EFc?= Damilaville <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 4:46 LA   "Los Angeles is the world's first and only city to  receive its own unique Internet address; .la. " ?

What about the redelegation of .LA ?

http://www.iana.org/reports/la-report-11dec02.htm

I may be wrong, but it seems not to have been put in force since December 11th, 2002.

Loic Damilaville

Jim Fleming a écrit :

> http://www.la
>
> "NOTICE: dotLA is now in a 'sunrise period.' Domains may now be registered and renewed, and payments are being processed, however
> new .la domains won't actually begin to work until June 9th, 2003.
> Los Angeles is the world's first and only city to receive its own unique Internet address; .la. "
>
> =====================
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.IPv8.info
> 4:46 LA
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 29 May 2003 08:47:07 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 4:46 LA   "Los Angeles is the world's first and only city to  receive its own unique Internet address; .la. " ?

http://www.postel.org/people.html
http://root-dns.org/vuedig/vuedig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=la&submit=Submit
LRS : Legacy Root Servers : 198.41.0.4
VueDig Results : Answer = 2 : Authority = 0 : Additional = 2.
la. 2D IN NS TLD1.ULTRADNS.NET.
la. 2D IN NS TLD2.ULTRADNS.NET.
==============================================
http://www.postel.org/people.html

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Loïc Damilaville" <[email-masked]>
To: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 8:37 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] 4:46 LA "Los Angeles is the world's first and only city to receive its own unique Internet address; .la. " ?

> What about the redelegation of .LA ?
>
> http://www.iana.org/reports/la-report-11dec02.htm
>
> I may be wrong, but it seems not to have been put in force since December 11th, 2002.
>
> Loic Damilaville
>
>
>
>
> Jim Fleming a écrit :
>
> > http://www.la
> >
> > "NOTICE: dotLA is now in a 'sunrise period.' Domains may now be registered and renewed, and payments are being processed,
however
> > new .la domains won't actually begin to work until June 9th, 2003.
> > Los Angeles is the world's first and only city to receive its own unique Internet address; .la. "
> >
> > =====================
> >
> > Jim Fleming
> > http://www.IPv8.info
> > 4:46 LA
> >
> > --
> > 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: Thu, 29 May 2003 08:59:55 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 911...SARS...CANADA..."This is all run by government money, essentially."

http://www.icann.org/calendar.htm
6-10 September 2001...Montevideo, Uruguay
27-31 October 2002...Shanghai, China
22-26 June 2003...Montreál, Canada
=========================
http://www.postel.org/people.html
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200305/msg00170.html
"SARS virus..."
====
Have no fear..."This is all run by government money, essentially."
> http://www.isi.edu/news/LABJSchorr.html
> "ISI was formed in 1972 to manage and research the ARPAnet"
> "Prior to joining ISI, Schorr spent more than 30 years in various engineering and management positions at IBM."
> "We're a spinout from Rand."
> "We're sort of between a corporate laboratory and a university..."
> "You know what ICANN is? That's in this building as we speak."
> "We ran IANA, which was the predecessor to ICANN."
> "This is all run by government money, essentially. So we're constantly looking for contracts."
> "Each person has an "agent" (an artificial intelligence program), and all the agents exchange information (via the Internet)."
> =================

- --
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, 29 May 2003 10:49:36 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?

Well said. I would add to that, it is inconceivable that an empowered At
Large organization would want to harm the provider side of industry, since
it's obvious the user *enjoys* the services they receive (in the main), and
wants to see it thrive, yet there seems to be a fundamental mistrust on the
provider side, that strives to eliminate meaningful AL participation in any
form of internet governance.

While the user looks to providers for new and innovative ways to improve the
quality of their internet experience, the providers respond by imposing
limits on the user's rights to participate in that process. For an
interested user, this has been an extremely frustrating and unsatisfactory
process over several years. No wonder there are so few people interested in
joining yet another puppet show performance over at the ALAC.

Yet this very same ALAC could have been an improvement if not for the fact
it has been turned upside down. Instead of bringing pressure to bear on the
Board to enforce the Agreements that ICANN enters into purportedly on the
users behalf (which would actually be useful), the ALAC is there to help
providers enforce limitations from the top down onto Internet User
participation in the regulatory and governance process, keeping it at a
level consistent with ICANN Staff thinking, which means nowhere near the
level where meaningful influence over policy decisions can actually be
gained.  This has not stopped the ALAC toings and froings, but equally it
has not convinced anyone that it is actually doing what it is says it is
doing, and so it seems as if the penny has finally dropped.

Most individual participants that have followed the AL movement on it's
downhill journey over the years, would have to be completely blind not to
have noticed the ALAC has reached a new low from the user perspective, hence
the smart money has gone elsewhere and finally, loyal ICANN users have
started to seek out external solutions that route around the ICANN problem.
The inclusive roots and ccTLDs have renewed appeal for many. So, let's be
honest about this. ICANN should trash the At Large concept completely and
carry on as the trade body it always should have been. You'll do just fine.
We'll do just fine. ICANN is just old, so it's time for a smarter, cheaper,
faster partner, or maybe no partner at all. To borrow from Vint Cerf, "Let's
take it outside".

Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Richard
> Henderson
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 5:43 AM
> To: Karl Auerbach; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?
>
>
> It's simple.
>
> ALAC doesn't speak for Internet Users.
>
> It speaks for the ICANN agenda.
>
> ALAC is an instrument of the ICANN Board, developed to constrain, contain,
> and marginalise the At Large movement, which would insist on democratic
> accountability being brought to bear on the ICANN Board.
>
> ALAC has been developed "top down" and it lacks the mandate of ordinary
> internet users.
>
> Therefore, it is truer to say that ALAC is representative of the ICANN
> Board. It does not represent Internet Users. No-one has asked for
> it. No-one
> has voted for it.
>
> It is perfectly obvious that the defence of User interests, and the
> development of an adequate 'Watchdog' role on ICANN's
> machinations, requires
> a worldwide structure which is *independent* of ICANN and organised
> externally.
>
> At present ALAC is not defending Users. It is acquiescing. ICANN has
> appointed its 'representatives'. ICANN (via Denise Michel) writes its
> responses.
>
> ALAC is a sham.
>
> Richard Henderson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 3:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?
>
>
> > On Wed, 28 May 2003 [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > > Having read the "ALAC responses to comments received on the proposed
> > > criteria, process and guidelines", I have only question:  Was ICANN
> Staff member
> > > Denise Michel the author of all of these responses?
> > >
> > > http://alac.icann.org/correspondence/responses-21may03.htm
> >
> > I agree that the answers are more than wimpy.
> >
> > For example, the answer to L. Gallegos, in my reading, amounts to a
> > statement that the ALAC, in its paternalistic way, knows best how people
> > should talk to one another and that it's either the ALAC way or the
> > highway.
> >
> > And when I suggested that the ALAC impose no requirement on at-large
> > members unless equivalent requirements are imposed on members
> of the SO's,
> > the ALAC said (paraphrase) "We can't control the SOs".  That's not an
> > answer, it is an excuse.  The ALAC could have said "We will
> advocate that
> > position to the Board" and in the meantime "we will not impose any
> > requirement that is not imposed on SO's".
> >
> > The old IDNO and other nascent assemblies in ICANN were
> dismissed as being
> > non-representative because they could not demonstrate thousands and
> > thousands of active, unified members.  I'd suggest that the
> ALAC's failure
> > to garner more than a trivial number of comments (even after
> extending the
> > period for such comments) is indicative that if those other assemblies
> > were in fact disconnected from "the public" that the ALAC is
> even further
> > disconnected and isolated.
> >
> > The ALAC lacks the gumption to do what is right; rather it
> seems intent on
> > doing what is convenient.
> >
> > --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
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 29 May 2003 21:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] More misinformation from Verisign re: WLS

Hello,

See:

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gomes-letter-to-halloran-28may03.htm

I remind Chuck of Verisign's official answers to various questions at:

http://www.icann.org/bucharest/vgrs-wls-responses-15feb02.pdf

in particular, answers to B.2 and B.3

"Registry load should not be a criterion for determining the proper
course of action regarding deleted domain name registrations."

Yet, once again Chuck trots out the Verisign misinformation, to attempt
to misinform the Board:

"These various registrars do so by sending extraordinarily high numbers
of robotic domain name registration requests to the VeriSign Com Net
Registry that currently costs VeriSign significant unreimbursed expense
to process. VeriSign has implemented a temporary system to support such
activity since August 2001 and has continued to support it without
charge since that time."

If registry load isn't a criterion, why does Chuck mention load, over
and over and over again? If anything qualifies as bad faith, I think it
is this, when it is clearly contrary to official answers that registry
load isn't an issue. Only an ICANN board who knowingly ignores a
community consensus, and its contracts with registrars, will not see
this letter by Verisign for what it truly is. 

The rest of the letter is the usual Verisign double-speak, which failed
to convince the community (indeed, the consensus position in the Names
Council was that WLS be denied). "I fail to understand" why Verisign
wants to push this through "for everyone's benefit" when their own
customers, Registrars, are against it (failed to get majority support
in the Registrars Constituency), and the customers of Registrars
(Business Constituency, ISPs, Non-Commercials) were also against it?
 
I'd like a clear answer from Verisign to one question, and I think this
letter above from Chuck *demands* an answer:

IS REGISTRY LOAD AN ISSUE IN THE WLS DEBATE?? Yes or no?

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1710
*************************