Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1711
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, May 31 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1711

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 08:24:19 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Developing an alternative to ICANN 2.0

Richard Henderson wrote:

>
>I think ICANN 2.0 perceives itself as well on the way to consolidating its
>positions. Its strategy with regard to the inclusive namespace is probably
>to overwhelm it and to duplicate some of its key operating tlds.
>

Few days ago I started commenting on this post, but then I realized I was 
reproposing the old debate "single root - multiple root", about which I 
believe everything has been said already in the years.

However, the opening sentence of Richard made me think about where we are in 
the process of ICANN 2.0, and do we really have an ICANN 2.0.

We are on the eve of a major election/nomination of the ICANN BoD. This is 
supposed to be an event that will deeply influence the Internet policy in 
the years to come, as a large number of Directors is involved.
However, I don't feel the tension that I have experienced at the times of 
the selection of the initial BoD. The hectic horse-trading, the circulation 
of names of candidates, the intense phone calling, the gossip on the lists, 
the cross-vetos, and so on, is not there.
Maybe I'm just now less attentive, or simply not so much in contact with the 
decision-makers. Of course the nominating committee is probably being 
flodded right now by email, phone calls, letters and what else by more or 
less influent people recommending candidates. But the general feeling is, 
looking on the low traffic about the subject on the public lists, that the 
interest is generally lower than at the time of the first BoD.

The reason, IMHO, is that the stakes are lower.
I'm not sure whether ICANN has established itself or not, but I am sure that 
some of the critical decisions have been taken. And together with this, the 
economic situation has dramatically changed from years ago. Consider the 
following examples (please be aware that I am not passing judgement on 
things or on somebody else's position, I only try to explain what I observe 
from the fence where I am sitting now).
* The NSi monopoly issue has been put at rest, with the trading of .org in 
exchange of the burial of the principle of the Registrar/Registry 
separation. This decision cannot reasonably be changed in the future, 
whatever the composition and attitude of the Directors.
* New gTLDs have been introduced, but no dramatic change of the global 
picture is to be seen. I don't see any new actor making easy billions as 
seemed to be the forecast years ago. The new Board will probably only 
continue a careful introduction of new TLDs, following the recent 
recommendation of the GNSO.
* dotcoms have collapsed in thousands, and Telcos have other bigger problems 
than risking huge monies in DNS, with ROI seriously doubtful at this point 
in time. I remember discussions I had in Montevideo with my former Telcos 
colleagues on the situation, and that was on the eve of 9/11. When we all 
came back home, most of us travelling the very 9/11, we found a different 
world, and the little optimism that some might have had on a quick recovery 
had disappeared.
* UDRP is an established fact (although the regular courts obviously have 
the last word on the issues). This process is also unlikely to be changed, 
and with it the other landmark for introduction of TLDs, namely the 
diversification of business models, policies, attitude towards trademark. 
This is gone forever, whatever the composition of the future Board.
* The worry of the IAB, and of large part of the commoners in IETF, that 
some Internet-illitterate people could take over and destroy the Internet, 
has not materialized. The PSO has been able to dissolve itself easily, 
without danger of leaving ICANN without a strong supporter of the technical 
lobby. Besides, at least two of the signatories of the PSO-MoU were seen 
anyhow by the purists as an element of dilution of the technical backbone, 
more prone to industrial or governmental interests rather than to pure 
technology.

So, what is the real open issue? What is the real interest at stake in the 
next years? What are the foreseeable developments, dangers, mission, that 
the oncoming board has to deal with?
To answer this, I would suggest to go back in time to the ICANN meeting 
(Yokohama, but I might be wrong) where two major players, Paul Twomey and 
Christopher Wilkinson, stood up to state that ICANN could not be ruled only 
by business interests: if that was happening (continuing?), governments 
would have to step in. Interestingly enough, Paul is now ICANN's CEO, while 
Christopher is non-voting member of the NomCom.
So, what does this mean? I would expect an ICANN BoD that will have some 
representation of the "public" interest, the users, the registrants, the 
individuals. Not to the extent of constituting a block that can be tempted 
to fight against other lobbies, but still a non-negligeable presence that 
will "legitimize" ICANN in the eyes of the laymen. Of course, the next 
consequence is that the voice of the AtLarge will be seeked and organized. 
Whether the masses are ready and willing to invest time and resources in 
participating to the ICANN process, that's another question, of which the 
answer is unknown to people without cristal ball. Ant that is the real bet 
and challenge: to move from the abstract declaration of principle of the 
need for individual stakeholder representation to the concrete work to make 
this representation a reality. I think that ICANN will remove the opposition 
it had (not in principle, but in the facts that rendered individual 
participation difficult and marginal), and that the page can be turned. Will 
we be able to grab the opportunity?

In other words, I'm moderately optimistic. Anyway, I guess in Montreal at 
the latest we will know...

Regards
Roberto

>It still staggers me that they could get away with the duplication of .biz
>It reflects a "Might is Right" philosophy which seems devoid of moral
>principle.
>
>So I believe that one form of challenge to ICANN is the creation of an
>"umbrella" where ICANN's hegemony and poor practice can be called into
>question by a multiplicity of interests : what's needed is an alliance of
>various sympathetic groups, the aggregation of writers' thoughts...
>intelligent participation and contributions. What's also needed is the
>generation of a movement which promotes the interests of ordinary users, 
>and
>portrays them as damaged by ICANN's bias toward vested interest groups.
>That's why I'm interested in the promotion of a kind of At Large outside of
>ICANN, and the development of mission, structure and policy, which can
>ultimately be democratised, and represent the interests of millions of
>ordinary users who are by far the largest constituency of stakeholders.
>
>Not all people being damaged by ICANN are interested specifically in the At
>Large, so an umbrella would be useful to help draw together an 
>"opposition",
>particularly if we attempted to reach out to ccTLD participants etc.
>
>If a worldwide alliance of groups could be generated, to create an
>alternative axis which the media could recognise and hang hooks on, then I
>believe intelligent independent thought would begin to shift away from 
>ICANN
>domination. The ccTLDs are probably reluctant to jump until they see the
>bandwagon rolling, but I'm sure many are hugely dissatisfied with ICANN
>(Nominet, for example) and its not implausible to imagine a world where the
>multiplicity of nets became as understood as the multiplicity of TV
>channels.
>
>That's my hope - that in a few years the public will recognise a
>multiplicity of Internets, mostly mirroring each other, all over the world 
>-
>but with distinctive features - and a multiplicity of tlds - and they will
>just pick their internet channel like you can pick your TV channel. I think
>technology will render the ICANN dinosaur obsolete in the end... but ICANN
>will try to crush its opposition, and USG may step in to help under the
>guise of security issues. However, technology can run roots all over the
>world, and far from US constraints.
>
>A key part of the strategy is to get the media aware of a challenge to
>ICANN, and to get substantial numbers of people, and groups, interested or
>involved in a revolt... or at least a serious challenge. The two main
>groupings which are likely to have an impact in this are: internet users 
>(at
>large); and the ccTLDs. Obviously the inclusive roots figure in all this
>too.
>
>I see this as a two-year strategy in the first instance, and it would need
>orchestration.
>
>I take the view that the At Large (or "User") movement needs to be "given" 
>a
>coherent org, process, and website outside and independent of ICANN - with 
>a
>coherent mission and outreach plan - which we can then 'democratise' in
>stages. The experience of IcannAtLarge so far indicates that to democratise
>at the outset results in easy sabotage, divergent objectives and potential
>inertia. What's needed is a ready set up package which people can then buy
>into (not financially, but ideologically).
>
>It should be possible to create an alternative axis, if serious and 
>informed
>participants come on board.
>
>The inclusive roots can form part of that alternative, but I take the view
>that you need to fight the opening battles/debates on the grounds
>used/occupied by ICANN and the world media as well. On the other hand,
>mirroring is a big part of the
>future subversion of ICANN's hegemony, and the inclusive roots are there to
>mirror, and diversify ICANN's monolithic dinosaur.
>
>In a sense, think USG>> DoC >> ICANN>> their DNS, and what you've got is a
>monolithic "one way only" incredibly old-fashioned and patriarchal
>hierarchy. It's all "top down". The subversion needs to be lateral,
>intuitive, more feminine and
>co-operative. It needs an alliance of multiple interests. It needs diverse
>expressions under one alternative banner. It needs genuine "bottom up"
>participation.
>
>Think alliances. Think the unpredictable. And when you're done with
>'thinking' ... start feeling! The future of the Internet - what it can 
>truly
>become - is a vision thing. It cannot just be reduced to economic
>imperatives and old-world domination.
>
>An alternative axis, opposite ICANN, and beyond it, can and should be
>developed.
>
>Richard H
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 12:50:43 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?

On Thu, 29 May 2003 10:42:33 +0100, you wrote:

>At present ALAC is not defending Users. It is acquiescing. 

I don't think that the ALAC is "acquiescing" to anything - especially
if you have a look at some of the things we said in the last weeks. We
try to do our best to keep up with all policy proceedings and at the
same time go on building the regional representation mechanism (and
still have a job, a life and so on); and we want to be constructive,
so we usually try to focus our comments on current issues and specific
points. But we are not afraid to speak when we think it's necessary.
- -- 
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: Fri, 30 May 2003 08:10:00 -0400
From: Esther Dyson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?

Thanks, Vittorio!

Esther

At 06:50 AM 5/30/2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>On Thu, 29 May 2003 10:42:33 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >At present ALAC is not defending Users. It is acquiescing.
>
>I don't think that the ALAC is "acquiescing" to anything - especially
>if you have a look at some of the things we said in the last weeks. We
>try to do our best to keep up with all policy proceedings and at the
>same time go on building the regional representation mechanism (and
>still have a job, a life and so on); and we want to be constructive,
>so we usually try to focus our comments on current issues and specific
>points. But we are not afraid to speak when we think it's necessary.
>--
>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

Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
[email-masked]
1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com

see my new blog (finally!) at
http://release4.blogspot.com/

Release 1.0 - the first good look
at technology that matters

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 08:39:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN Translation [WAS] Who speaks for the ALAC?

On Fri, 30 May 2003, Esther Dyson wrote:

> Thanks, Vittorio!

Icann Doublespeak Translation

Vittorio your cheque is in the mail.

>
> Esther
>
> At 06:50 AM 5/30/2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> >On Thu, 29 May 2003 10:42:33 +0100, you wrote:
> >
> > >At present ALAC is not defending Users. It is acquiescing.
> >
> >I don't think that the ALAC is "acquiescing" to anything - especially
> >if you have a look at some of the things we said in the last weeks. We
> >try to do our best to keep up with all policy proceedings and at the
> >same time go on building the regional representation mechanism (and
> >still have a job, a life and so on); and we want to be constructive,
> >so we usually try to focus our comments on current issues and specific
> >points. But we are not afraid to speak when we think it's necessary.
> >--
> >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
>
>
>
> Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> [email-masked]
> 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com
>
> see my new blog (finally!) at
> http://release4.blogspot.com/
>
> Release 1.0 - the first good look
> at technology that matters
>
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 30 May 2003 08:54:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Developing an alternative to ICANN 2.0

The reason IMHO is that the game is pretty much fixed: dissidents know
they can't get the votes to influence outcomes, there is no
balloting open to the public in any forum.  Thus no incentive to
participate if you are not an insider.

On Fri, 30 May 2003, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> We are on the eve of a major election/nomination of the ICANN BoD. This is 
> supposed to be an event that will deeply influence the Internet policy in 
> the years to come, as a large number of Directors is involved.
> However, I don't feel the tension that I have experienced at the times of 
> the selection of the initial BoD. The hectic horse-trading, the circulation 
> of names of candidates, the intense phone calling, the gossip on the lists, 
> the cross-vetos, and so on, is not there.

[...]
> 
> The reason, IMHO, is that the stakes are lower.

Only in the sense that the outcomes are fixed, so why play?

- -- 
		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 hot 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: Fri, 30 May 2003 14:07:23 +0100
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: ICANN Translation [WAS] Who speaks for the ALAC?

Well to be more precise, Denise is the one getting paid for ALAC, and she -
basically - *is* ALAC. She writes much of the output, she drives the train,
she oversees the passengers. But bottom line is, ICANN pays, ALAC delivers.

It is a farce to see ALAC as the independent voice of the At Large.

First there was ALSC (the Board rejected its own committee).

Then there was the expulsion of the elected At Large Board members.

Now there's ALAC.

All part of the same agenda.

regards,

Richard Henderson

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
To: Esther Dyson <[email-masked]>
Cc: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>; Richard Henderson
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 1:39 PM
Subject: ICANN Translation [WAS] Who speaks for the ALAC?

>
> On Fri, 30 May 2003, Esther Dyson wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Vittorio!
>
> Icann Doublespeak Translation
>
> Vittorio your cheque is in the mail.
>
> >
> > Esther
> >
> > At 06:50 AM 5/30/2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> > >On Thu, 29 May 2003 10:42:33 +0100, you wrote:
> > >
> > > >At present ALAC is not defending Users. It is acquiescing.
> > >
> > >I don't think that the ALAC is "acquiescing" to anything - especially
> > >if you have a look at some of the things we said in the last weeks. We
> > >try to do our best to keep up with all policy proceedings and at the
> > >same time go on building the regional representation mechanism (and
> > >still have a job, a life and so on); and we want to be constructive,
> > >so we usually try to focus our comments on current issues and specific
> > >points. But we are not afraid to speak when we think it's necessary.
> > >--
> > >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
> >
> >
> >
> > Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> > chairman, EDventure Holdings
> > writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> > [email-masked]
> > 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> > 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> > New York, NY 10011 USA
> > http://www.edventure.com
> >
> > see my new blog (finally!) at
> > http://release4.blogspot.com/
> >
> > Release 1.0 - the first good look
> > at technology that matters
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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: Fri, 30 May 2003 09:28:01 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?

A ringing endorsement, to be sure.

- --Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Esther Dyson wrote:

> Thanks, Vittorio!
>
> Esther
>
> At 06:50 AM 5/30/2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 May 2003 10:42:33 +0100, you wrote:
>>
>> >At present ALAC is not defending Users. It is acquiescing.
>>
>> I don't think that the ALAC is "acquiescing" to anything - especially
>> if you have a look at some of the things we said in the last weeks. We
>> try to do our best to keep up with all policy proceedings and at the
>> same time go on building the regional representation mechanism (and
>> still have a job, a life and so on); and we want to be constructive,
>> so we usually try to focus our comments on current issues and specific
>> points. But we are not afraid to speak when we think it's necessary.
>> -- 
>> 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
>
>
>
>
> Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> [email-masked]
> 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com
>
> see my new blog (finally!) at
> http://release4.blogspot.com/
>
> Release 1.0 - the first good look
> at technology that matters
>
>
> -- 
> 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
>

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

"The science of jurisprudence regards the state and power as the
ancients regarded fire- namely, as something existing absolutely.
But for history, the state and power are merely phenomena, just as for
modern physics fire is not an element but a phenomenon.

From this fundamental difference between the view held by history
and that held by jurisprudence, it follows that jurisprudence can tell
minutely how in its opinion power should be constituted and what
power- existing immutably outside time- is, but to history's questions
about the meaning of the mutations of power in time it can answer
nothing."
				     --Leo Tolstoy, "War and Peace"

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 11:12:24 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who speaks for the ALAC?

On Friday, May 30, 2003, at 05:50  AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> On Thu, 29 May 2003 10:42:33 +0100, you wrote:
>
>> At present ALAC is not defending Users. It is acquiescing.
>
> I don't think that the ALAC is "acquiescing" to anything - especially
> if you have a look at some of the things we said in the last weeks. We
> try to do our best to keep up with all policy proceedings and at the
> same time go on building the regional representation mechanism (and
> still have a job, a life and so on); and we want to be constructive,
> so we usually try to focus our comments on current issues and specific
> points. But we are not afraid to speak when we think it's necessary.
>
Although grammatically correct, technically speaking, "we" should be 
replace with "Denise, Esther and I"

It's all a CROCK OF SHIT.

You do NOT represent ME. You NEVER HAVE. You NEVER WILL.

Especially you , Esther. I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw a 
polyester garbed transvestite.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 09:49:15 -0700
From: Loren Stocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [More misinformation from Verisign re: WLS]

Hi George,

Always good to see that you're on top on this WLS non-sense.

Registry load is irrelevant. Thanks to this "temporary system," the drop load
is now contained and controlled with allocated bandwidth and on it own server
bank. More registrar? No problem. Just re-allocate or use the new revenues to
add capacity.

The only remaining problem is psychological. Mr. Gomez is in denial. The
"temporary system" is the system that works. The rest of us have moved on.

Yet, there's hope for Mr. Gomez. Anyone know a good recruiter? This guy can
act! 

MEO

WWW.EVIL.BIZ

George Kirikos <[email-masked]> wrote:
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

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 12:27:42 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [More misinformation from Verisign re: WLS]

On Friday, May 30, 2003, at 11:49  AM, Loren Stocker wrote:

> Hi George,
>
> Always good to see that you're on top on this WLS non-sense.
>
> Registry load is irrelevant.

And if it was, even a half-arsed programmer could add rate limiting to 
the SRS protocol very easily. Surely Verisign's got a spare half-arsed 
programmer sitting around somewhere?

Or maybe they're not interested in the easy fix?

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 14:08:27 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Developing an alternative to ICANN 2.0

Yup.  The folks that could have been helpful probably found that their time was best 
used for viable projects rather than wasting energy on an insider game.

Leah

On 30 May 2003 at 8:54, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> The reason IMHO is that the game is pretty much fixed: dissidents know they
> can't get the votes to influence outcomes, there is no balloting open to
> the public in any forum.  Thus no incentive to participate if you are not
> an insider.
> 
> On Fri, 30 May 2003, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> > We are on the eve of a major election/nomination of the ICANN BoD. This
> > is supposed to be an event that will deeply influence the Internet policy
> > in the years to come, as a large number of Directors is involved.
> > However, I don't feel the tension that I have experienced at the times of
> > the selection of the initial BoD. The hectic horse-trading, the
> > circulation of names of candidates, the intense phone calling, the gossip
> > on the lists, the cross-vetos, and so on, is not there.
> 
> [...]
> > 
> > The reason, IMHO, is that the stakes are lower.
> 
> Only in the sense that the outcomes are fixed, so why play?
> 
> 
> -- 
>   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 hot 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
> 
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 11:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [More misinformation from Verisign re: WLS]

Hello,

- --- Andy Gardner <[email-masked]> wrote:
> And if it was, even a half-arsed programmer could add rate limiting
> to 
> the SRS protocol very easily. Surely Verisign's got a spare
> half-arsed 
> programmer sitting around somewhere?

Exactly -- throttling was a trivial fix, and solved the problem. See
the February 2002 document where Verisign answered that and other
questions, namely B.2. and B.3.
 
> Or maybe they're not interested in the easy fix?

The technical problem was fixed long ago -- the drop system is
functioning in an orderly manner every day at 2 pm Eastern time for
com/net. Verisign only trots out the load issue when they want to pull
the strings of the "technologists" in ICANN, suggesting that there
still needs to be an engineering solution, even though the problem is
solved. This pulls the wool over the eyes of those in ICANN who have
only a cursory knowledge of WLS, by framing the debate in such a way
that PRESUMES a problem. There's no problem whatsoever at present.

The true "problem" is that Verisign can't abuse its monopoly position
under the status quo, and needs WLS to soak consumers and registrars
with unnecessary charges, for a service already offered in a competitve
manner at the registrar layer.

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 16:03:23 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [More misinformation from Verisign re: WLS]

It is the lobbyists/special interests and their cash who inevitably
get what they want. Community consensus, and what's really in the best
interest of the Internet Community, is clearly irrelevant to ICANN.

The Internet Community was strongly against WLS and the Names Council
opposed it as well.  It is abundantly clear that VeriSign's money was
much more attractive to the ICANN Board than doing the right thing for
the Community, the Registrars and for fair and healthy competition.

It is also very clear that with this ICANN reorganization and the
assassination of the GA, ICANN has every intention to completely
stifle the voice of the Community or, perhaps better said, to mold
that voice into whatever ICANN wants it to be.

ICANN has, indeed, become part of the very monopoly which it was
charged to dissolve. Their actions just with .com, .net and WLS speak
volumes.

Maybe it is time to consider letting ICANN, VeriSign and the
"insiders" play, all by themselves, in the sandbox, which is clearly
what they want. Maybe it is time for the Community to abandon this
inequity and prove to ICANN and the insiders that it is not the
Community which is irrelevant, but it is they who are the irrelevant
ones.

I have never endorsed the Alternate Root, but I can certainly see the
merit of it, particularly in the face of what ICANN has come to be and
of what ICANN has come to stand for.

If the Community wants equity, democracy and a voice in Internet
governance, then the Community will need to create it.  It's not
happening within the ICANN structure and the evidence shows it's
ICANN's intent for it never to happen.

Thanks,

Friday, May 30, 2003, 1:32:51 PM, George Kirikos <[email-masked]> wrote:
GK> Hello,

GK> --- Andy Gardner <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> And if it was, even a half-arsed programmer could add rate limiting
>> to 
>> the SRS protocol very easily. Surely Verisign's got a spare
>> half-arsed 
>> programmer sitting around somewhere?

GK> Exactly -- throttling was a trivial fix, and solved the problem. See
GK> the February 2002 document where Verisign answered that and other
GK> questions, namely B.2. and B.3.
 
>> Or maybe they're not interested in the easy fix?

GK> The technical problem was fixed long ago -- the drop system is
GK> functioning in an orderly manner every day at 2 pm Eastern time for
GK> com/net. Verisign only trots out the load issue when they want to pull
GK> the strings of the "technologists" in ICANN, suggesting that there
GK> still needs to be an engineering solution, even though the problem is
GK> solved. This pulls the wool over the eyes of those in ICANN who have
GK> only a cursory knowledge of WLS, by framing the debate in such a way
GK> that PRESUMES a problem. There's no problem whatsoever at present.

GK> The true "problem" is that Verisign can't abuse its monopoly position
GK> under the status quo, and needs WLS to soak consumers and registrars
GK> with unnecessary charges, for a service already offered in a competitve
GK> manner at the registrar layer.

GK> Sincerely,

GK> George Kirikos
GK> http://www.kirikos.com/
GK> --
GK> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
GK> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
GK> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
GK> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 18:00:29 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [More misinformation from Verisign re: WLS]

Don Brown wrote:

><snip>
>
>I have never endorsed the Alternate Root, but I can certainly see the
>merit of it, particularly in the face of what ICANN has come to be and
>of what ICANN has come to stand for.
>

Ditto for me.

- --Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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

"The science of jurisprudence regards the state and power as the
ancients regarded fire- namely, as something existing absolutely.
But for history, the state and power are merely phenomena, just as for
modern physics fire is not an element but a phenomenon.

From this fundamental difference between the view held by history
and that held by jurisprudence, it follows that jurisprudence can tell
minutely how in its opinion power should be constituted and what
power- existing immutably outside time- is, but to history's questions
about the meaning of the mutations of power in time it can answer
nothing."
				     --Leo Tolstoy, "War and Peace"

- --
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 #1711
*************************