Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #192
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, November 13 2000          Volume 01 : Number 192

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

Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 19:48:14 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Suggestion of allicating time @GA on new TLDs

Hi folks,
there's come in a suggestion for a change of item on the GA meeting.

We currently have a 5-minute item "status of new TLDs".
We don't have any working groups to report from, so we could redisposition
some time from this.

Suggestion: Use this as a structured Q&A period for the new gTLD applications,
so that the GA members can get some comparatively well-formed input on the 
new proposals.

Suggested format:

- - Get a representative from each of the 16 proposals on the shortlist
- - Get about 5 questions to raise - not about the proposals, but about the
   way the proposers think that the DNS expansion should happen, and how their
   particular proposal will affect the DNS and the Internet
- - Ask each proposer to answer these question in a limited time (3 minutes?)
- - Allow some time for discussion

Does this strike people as a reasonable use of GA time?

- --
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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 19:43:58 -0500
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

Yes - I agree

Kendall

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ken Stoen [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 6:09 PM
>
>A: Is there a CONSENSUS on the following issue:
>
>
>
>1) The newly elected board members should take
>    their seats before the general meeting, not after.
>
>
>2) All non-elected members whose terms have been
>    extended beyond their original time should immediately
>    resign.
>
>
>Please reply with yes "I agree"  or "I don't agree"

- --
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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:54:09 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Suggestion of allocating time @GA on new TLDs

After speaking with a couple of the folks who would be invited in, I thought
that this made excellent sense since it offers an opportunity to hear from
various folks who have proposed the nine names on the "shortlist", before
the public comment period of the  Board, which is the next day, thus
offering all at the GA a chance to learn more before offering public
comments.   I hope others on the GA will find this useful and support the
idea. 

I understand that it doesn't address the other proposals, however (those not
on the "shortlist").  I recognize that there is a need to find an
opportunity to discuss criteria for making the short list, but perhaps that
can be done during the Public Comment period. 

Regards, Marilyn Cade 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 1:48 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Suggestion of allicating time @GA on new TLDs

Hi folks,
there's come in a suggestion for a change of item on the GA meeting.

We currently have a 5-minute item "status of new TLDs".
We don't have any working groups to report from, so we could redisposition
some time from this.

Suggestion: Use this as a structured Q&A period for the new gTLD
applications,
so that the GA members can get some comparatively well-formed input on the 
new proposals.

Suggested format:

- - Get a representative from each of the 16 proposals on the shortlist
- - Get about 5 questions to raise - not about the proposals, but about the
   way the proposers think that the DNS expansion should happen, and how
their
   particular proposal will affect the DNS and the Internet
- - Ask each proposer to answer these question in a limited time (3 minutes?)
- - Allow some time for discussion

Does this strike people as a reasonable use of GA time?

- --
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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:04:42 -0500
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

At 11:35 AM 11/11/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>But pointless resolutions demanding that
>Directors resign etc have undone all that.

Kent,

If you are referring to my forwarded message from Jeff Williams -- I 
apologize to Mr. Stubbs and the rest of the list. It was not my intention 
to engage in name-calling or personal attacks on Ken Stubbs. But, the 
reasons behind my support of Mr. Stubbs' resignation are NOT pointless and 
are completely credible.  It bothers me that according to ICANN's by-laws 
[article V-7] conflicts of interest are prohibited. But, the supporting 
organizations (and specifically the NC Chair) do not have to adhere to any 
sort of "conflict-of-interest policy"?

Here are my reasons for supporting Ken Stubbs' resignation as the Chair of 
the Names Council:
- ----------------------------

1) A person by the name of Kenyon T. Stubbs is a 5% (or more) shareholder 
of iDomains, Inc which submitted an application to operate new TLDs (.biz / 
.ebiz / .ecom ).  Not surprisingly , the evaluation team concluded that 
this application "merited further review".  A "Notice of Material Change of 
Circumstances Regarding Ownership" 
(http://www.icann.org/tlds/biz3/notice.html) was posted by ICANN just 
before midnight on 7 November, barely two days before ICANN posted the 
results of its review of the proposals,  Report on TLD Applications. [The 
same person??]

2) Ken Stubbs, is a member of the Board of Afilias who has submitted an 
application to operate new TLDs ( .info / .site / .web).

3) Ken Stubbs is the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Internet 
Council of Registrars (CORE) who's members (if selected by ICANN) will 
profit handsomely from sale of new top domain names.

3) Ken Stubbs is on the "Whois Committee for the DNSO" ??  [ This was 
revealed at the 19 October teleconference of ICANN's Names Council. Mr. 
Touton described it as - "just a group of people that...of various 
interest...who the ICANN staff asked to get together and try to formulate 
some proposals or ideas that might then be passed as appropriate to either 
the Names Council or the ICANN staff, depending on whether it's a policy 
matter or an implementation matter." This "informal" group was unknown even 
to the DNSO's secretariat 
[http://www.tbtf.com/roving_reporter/icann3.html#8]. The only other known 
reference to this group is a message from Michael Palage to the DNSO's 
registrars' mailing list.  It is odd that we have never heard of it or its 
activities and that this "committee" has a scope so broad that its 
recommendations will be sorted on an ad hoc basis into "policy" or 
"technical" procedures and channels.]

4) And, finally, as a member of Working Group C, I was not satisfied with 
the explanation given by the Names Council for making a year's worth of 
their work irrelevant. I know that Mr. Stubbs is not the only member of the 
NC - nor did he vote on this alone.  But, being the Chair of the NC -- it 
should be his responsibility to provide an honest answer (from the other NC 
members) as to why the Names Council completely ignored a hard-won 
recommendation for 6 -10 new gTLDs that took Working Group C over a year to 
reach.

And, as far as the other board members go? Here are some more examples of 
conflict of interest:
- ----------------------------

Four boardmembers (Abril i Abril, Blokzijl, Crew, Davidson) who recused 
themselves from involvement in decisions on new TLDs. Well, maybe not... 
They did so, curiously, en masse, on 1 November -- just one day before the 
application period ended, that is to say, up to three weeks after the 
relevant proposals were submitted (Abril i Abril, Afilias 
".info/.site/.web" [12 Oct] and CORE ".nom" [19 Oct]; Blokzijl, Telnic 
".tel" [11 Oct]; Crew, JVTeam ".biz" [15 Oct] and JVTeam ".per" [11 Oct]; 
Davidson, Group One ".one" [11 oct]). ICANN assures that they recused 
themselves "prior to their consideration of any application"; in other 
words, they spent months contributing to proposals while crafting ICANN's 
new TLD process. (http://www.tbtf.com/roving_reporter/)

My point is that, according to their by-laws, ICANN has to adhere to a 
conflict-of-interest policy, and so should the rest of the supporting 
organizations and the NC members. Anything else just makes the whole 
process seem suspicious.

Regards,

Kendall

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

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

Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:25:52 -0500
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Suggestion of allocating time @GA on new TLDs

Hi Harald,

At 07:48 PM 11/12/00 +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>Hi folks,
>there's come in a suggestion for a change of item on the GA meeting.
>
>We currently have a 5-minute item "status of new TLDs".
>We don't have any working groups to report from, so we could redisposition
>some time from this.
>
>Suggestion: Use this as a structured Q&A period for the new gTLD applications,
>so that the GA members can get some comparatively well-formed input on the 
>new proposals.
>
>Suggested format:
>
>- Get a representative from each of the 16 proposals on the shortlist
>- Get about 5 questions to raise - not about the proposals, but about the
>   way the proposers think that the DNS expansion should happen, and how their
>   particular proposal will affect the DNS and the Internet

My suggestion for a question to ask of the 16 representatives:

"Between 1992 and 1999, Network Solutions held exclusive control of the 
domain registry. They have registered nearly 12 million domain names alone. 
One of ICANN's goals is to "enable competition and open entry in 
Internet-related markets". If your application is chosen and you are 
allowed to create a new TLD -- what is your plan to enable competition with 
Network Solutions?

This may display some of my bias towards NSI... but, I want to know how do 
they plan to enable competition? The last thing that the Internet or any of 
us needs is another monopoly controlling the DNS.

>- Ask each proposer to answer these question in a limited time (3 minutes?)
>- Allow some time for discussion
>
>Does this strike people as a reasonable use of GA time?

I think this is wise use of GA time. It will allow the proposers to openly 
state their response "on-the-record" so that the general public can hold 
them accountable for answers and their future decisions.

Regards,

Kendall

- --
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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:36:36 -0800
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Suggestion of allocating time @GA on new TLDs

> - Get a representative from each of the 16 proposals on the shortlist

It's very short notice to get representatives to appear. I know for a fact
that some TLD applicants planned to fly in Tuesday afternoon because they
reasonably did not apprehend that there would a role to play at the DNSO GA
meeting. 

       -- Bret

- --
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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:19:37 -0600
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

The group is pursuing primarily technical requirements for enhanced query 
capabilities.  The IETF was quite aware of the activity, as it should be.

When has the DNSO been involved in technical issues?

d/

At 11:04 PM 11/12/00 -0500, Kendall Dawson wrote:
>) Ken Stubbs is on the "Whois Committee for the DNSO" ??  [ This was 
>revealed at the 19 October teleconference of ICANN's Names Council. Mr. 
>Touton described it as - "just a group of people that...of various 
>interest...who the ICANN staff asked to get together and try to formulate 
>some proposals or ideas that might then be passed as appropriate to either 
>the Names Council or the ICANN staff, depending on whether it's a policy 
>matter or an implementation matter." This "informal" group was unknown 
>even to the DNSO's secretariat 
>[http://www.tbtf.com/roving_reporter/icann3.html#8]. The only other known 
>reference to this group is a message from Michael Palage to the DNSO's 
>registrars' mailing list.  It is odd that we have never heard of it or its 
>activities and that this "committee" has a scope so broad that its 
>recommendations will be sorted on an ad hoc basis into "policy" or 
>"technical" procedures and channels.]

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <[email-masked]>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464

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

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

Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:25:01 -0800
From: Kristy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

Yes - I agree

~k

At 04:43 PM 11/12/2000, Kendall Dawson wrote:
>Yes - I agree
>
>Kendall
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Ken Stoen [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 6:09 PM
>>
>>A: Is there a CONSENSUS on the following issue:
>>
>>
>>
>>1) The newly elected board members should take
>>    their seats before the general meeting, not after.
>>
>>
>>2) All non-elected members whose terms have been
>>    extended beyond their original time should immediately
>>    resign.
>>
>>
>>Please reply with yes "I agree"  or "I don't agree"
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 11:00:24 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: FW: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating  rule

"PMIW, Ken Stoen" wrote:

> 1) The newly elected board members should take
>    their seats before the general meeting, not after.
> 
> 2) All non-elected members whose terms have been
>    extended beyond their original time should immediately
>    resign.
> 
> Please reply with yes "I agree"  or "I don't agree"
> 
I agree.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 11:25:58 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Polling the list continually--just a little correction.

Let me correct the record. The post in question wasn't from me, but was
accidentally attributed to me.  Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 7:15 PM
To: Joop Teernstra
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Polling the list continually

Hello Joop,

Saturday, November 11, 2000, 3:12:10 PM, you wrote:

> At 16:40 11/11/00 -0500, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

>>Perhaps a solution would be to poll each thread with a 
>>" Agree / Disagree... Yes / No "  call to the list.
>>

> I think this is a good idea and if Marilyn would wish to make this polling
> option available each time such a "consensus" thread occurs,  I would be
> happy to entrust her an administrator account on the Polling Booth.
> It takes 10 minutes to put such a poll up. The tally is automatic and the
> results can be set to be visible in real time.

And is incredibly insecure.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 11:09:14 -0600
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: FW: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating  rule

Does the "administration" have a current count of responders?

Sandy Harris wrote:

> > 1) The newly elected board members should take
> >    their seats before the general meeting, not after.
> >
> > 2) All non-elected members whose terms have been
> >    extended beyond their original time should immediately
> >    resign.
> >
> > Please reply with yes "I agree"  or "I don't agree"
> >
> I agree.

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

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

Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:43:59 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William X. Walsh

The list monitor has received a complaint from Joop Ternstra about the message
sent by William X. Walsh <[email-masked]> on Nov 8, 2000, 
containing the paragraph

>Only you can tell us this, since you are the only one with access to
>the membership list, and for all we know, half of those people are
>made up.

The list monitor finds that this is a personal attack that is in conflict 
with the list rules, and therefore asks the list manager to suspend William 
Walsh' posting rights to the list for 2 weeks, until November 27, 2000.

Decisions of the list monitor can be appealed to the GA chair.

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #192
************************