Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #257
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, March 1 2001           Volume 01 : Number 257

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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:31:58 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Chair-NOMINATION-Charles Sha'ban

Hello Joop,

Wednesday, February 28, 2001, 7:50:37 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Dear GA members,

> Electing a Chair only from only a one-dimensional on-line acquaintance is
> experimental at best and a gamble at worst.

> Qualities of self-discipline are needed, but the heart must also be in the
> right place. We should have candidates who do not really want it, but who
> are finally persuaded to do the duty by the clamor of their nominations. 
> The way we are proceeding now, with candidates nominated and then
> immediately attacked and defended, results in instant election politics
> even before nominations are accepted. 
> We will get nowhere like this.

No one was attacked, Joop.  But I agree with you that the campaign
style approach we are seeing one candidate take is not appropriate,
and nor does it show the qualities that the GA Chair needs to have.

> The only way to get enough candidates to make an election meaningful is to
> have a large number of seconded nominations.

I strongly and vehemently disagree with you here.

The nominate many approach has been tried many times in many groups
online, and to be perfectly blunt, as a rule the worst candidates end
up getting selected when it is used.  The WG Chair being perhaps the
only exception to that.

The candidates should be KNOWN to the GA members, known quantities,
whom the GA members can feel like they can put their confidence.
Massive nomination and candidate panels only lead to a divisive
choice, rather than a choice that comes much closer to a consensus
level decision.

- -- 
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

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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:42:14 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] New TLD Agreements

Hello Kent,

Wednesday, February 28, 2001, 9:57:39 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 06:36:04PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> Hello Michael,
>> 
>> Wednesday, February 28, 2001, 6:29:29 PM, Michael F. McNulty wrote:
>> 
>> > The UDRP has saved legitimate businessess many, many
>> > millions of dollars in legal fees.  ICANN has justified itself
>> > by this mechanism alone.
>> 
>> Yes, it saved them much in legal fees to win cases that they would
>> never have won had they gone to court.

> It has saved the *defendants* millions of dollars in legal fees.

Maybe a very very small handful who didn't challenge their UDRP cases
and lost by default because the burden and investment required by the
other company was so small that they went after a case they would
never have won in court, and never have gone to the expense of filing
in court.

Your statement above is absolutely false, and I challenge you to
back it up with one shred of evidence.

>> They've enabled businesses to reverse hijack and seize domain names
>> that they would have absolutely NO right to under the law.
>> 
>> ICANN has done more damage to its credibility with the UDRP than with
>> any single other act.

> Nope.  Quite the reverse.  You are deceived.  People who busy themselves
> on these email lists are not a representative sample. 

Read the damn press, Kent.  Even the press are now REGULARLY
commenting on the fact that the UDRP far exceeds not only its mandate,
but anything that the laws of any country permits.  This has even hit
CNN, Kent.  If you think that the views on this are a minority view,
you are grossly deluding yourself at best, and at worst being entirely
disingenuous purposely in order to defend this clearly overreaching
tainted policy because the IP interests sided with your views in
exchange for your support of theirs.

- -- 
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

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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:02:45 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD Agreements

Mr. Walsh,
Thank you for your contributions.  You are right I shall curb allowing folks to
know how I feel.  I will stop proclaiming my concurrence with the requirements
of the chair.  I will no longer advocate open and transparent nominees.

Sorry but wrong.  Any attacks are welcome and any suggestions are welcome.
Imagine a campaign where everyone gets to know your camp.

Sincerely,

"William X. Walsh" wrote:
Campaigning for the position is probably one more sign that points out

> why someone shouldn't be GA Chair.  That's not the kind of Chair the
> GA needs.

- --
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, 01 Mar 2001 02:09:20 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD Agreements

Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> WXW, Michael and all remaining assembly members,
> 
>   I must also agree with William on this one.  The UDRP is an abomination
> 
> of gargantuan purporting.  It is extra-legal, it thwarts due process, it
> has less and less support on a global basis by stakeholders.  The
> evidence
> is simply overwhelming.  The UDRP should be suspended until reforms
> are incorporated or done away with all together.

I'm not convinced that the UDRP should be done
away with completely. However, I have repeatedly
called for a moratorium on UDRP cases NOT
involving coined words.  I think that this should
be seriously considered by ICANN as a face-saving
move which would do much for its currently
tarnished image among the ICW.  No trademark
holder of a generic term (or any other dictionary
term) is de facto entitled to a domain name!  The
contention that this is so is ludicrous and is
totally responsible for the bad press the UDRP has
received.  When a trademark is registered, there
is no concommitant "rights" to a domain name
granted with said registration!  A trademark is an
exclusive right to use a word in a specific
commercial context and NOT in all commerce
generally!  This has somehow been
overlooked/ignored and is the reason for the
mounting (and already great) discontent with the
ICANN and UDRP among the ICW.  WIPO must be
reigned in or they will ultimately discredit ICANN
completely.  I REITERATE MY CALL FOR A MORATORIUM
ON ALL CURRENT/PENDING/FUTURE UDRP CASES THAT DO
NOT INVOLVE EXPLICITLY COINED WORDS.  I believe
that in cases of coined words the UDRP is indeed
useful, but any other application of such a
"policy" is detrimental and highly injurious to
the interests of the ICW and ICANN.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network, Inc.
- --
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, 01 Mar 2001 02:13:30 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD Agreements

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 06:36:04PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:

> > ICANN has done more damage to its credibility with the UDRP than with
> > any single other act.
> 
> Nope.  Quite the reverse.  You are deceived.  People who busy themselves
> on these email lists are not a representative sample.

Would you mind telling us what an acceptable
representative sample would be, Mr. Crispin?  I'm
sure many of us would be interested in having you
educate us in this matter.

TIA,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network, Inc.
- --
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, 01 Mar 2001 01:37:51 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD Agreements

Kent and all remaining assembly members,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 06:36:04PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > Hello Michael,
> >
> > Wednesday, February 28, 2001, 6:29:29 PM, Michael F. McNulty wrote:
> >
> > > The UDRP has saved legitimate businessess many, many
> > > millions of dollars in legal fees.  ICANN has justified itself
> > > by this mechanism alone.
> >
> > Yes, it saved them much in legal fees to win cases that they would
> > never have won had they gone to court.
>
> It has saved the *defendants* millions of dollars in legal fees.

  Really.  Where is this documented Kent.  I has also cost many more,
many more millions in losses in their fledgling business startups through
reverse domain name hijacking or the fear of such.

>
>
> > They've enabled businesses to reverse hijack and seize domain names
> > that they would have absolutely NO right to under the law.
> >
> > ICANN has done more damage to its credibility with the UDRP than with
> > any single other act.
>
> Nope.  Quite the reverse.  You are deceived.  People who busy themselves
> on these email lists are not a representative sample.

  Oh really?  And what substantiated documentation do you base this
assertion on?  From the many news articles, some over 6k domain name
holders that have written their congressmen in the US, the over 12k
european Domain name holders that have complained to their respective
government representatives, and the number of court cases in progress or
already decided, seem to starkly disagree with you here....

  Of course you already knew most if not all of this, yet you seem to still
believe something that is not currently broadly supported, or even well
documented to any substantial extent.

>
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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, 01 Mar 2001 01:48:47 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD Agreements

Eric and all remaining assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > WXW, Michael and all remaining assembly members,
> >
> >   I must also agree with William on this one.  The UDRP is an abomination
> > of gargantuan purporting.
>
> Here is a great case in point.  Unless I hear strongly and persuasively
> otherwise how could I argue against this point.  One post which has not
> responded to attacks against it and seemed more calculated toward reaction
> than input?  When I go to Melbourne I will argue with this point, unless
> convinced otherwise by popularity and/or persuasion.

  So than you support the UDRP needs allot of reform?  If so, than good.
I would be happy to suggest to our board to assist you in this endeavor.

>
>
> If this helps you judge my "Qualifications" and position then we are open and
> transparent.

  It does.  Openness is a huge problem that currently exists within ICANN,
the DNSO and WIPO.  But, the DNSO is the venue here so I shall concentrate
on the DNSO here.  Currently the WG process is a closed one.  It needs
to be an open one.  In the past few days I have repeatedly ask about
the WG-Review ML.  I have not gotten a response from that WG's
Chair Greg Burton as to my application to join that WG's ML.  I have
heard both privately and on this list, that it is a closed WG ML.  This should
not be, and is a violation of the MoU.  I hope that any newly elected DNSO
Chair shall be a voice and instrument for changing this.

>
>
> Sincerely,

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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, 01 Mar 2001 01:59:08 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD Agreements

WXW and all remaining assembly members,

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Eric,
>
> Wednesday, February 28, 2001, 10:24:57 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> >> WXW, Michael and all remaining assembly members,
> >>
> >>   I must also agree with William on this one.  The UDRP is an abomination
> >> of gargantuan purporting.
>
> > Here is a great case in point.  Unless I hear strongly and persuasively
> > otherwise how could I argue against this point.  One post which has not
> > responded to attacks against it and seemed more calculated toward reaction
> > than input?  When I go to Melbourne I will argue with this point, unless
> > convinced otherwise by popularity and/or persuasion.
>
> The Chair is not a cheerleader for the views he supports, he is a
> catalyst for consensus, and needs to have ability to move the body
> towards a non-divisive level of consensus, and then works in a way to
> present that Consensus to the Names Council.

  In part this is correct, IMHO.  And I believe that Eric's comments in response

to mine, (Just above) enumerate this nicely....

>
>
> Campaigning for the position is probably one more sign that points out
> why someone shouldn't be GA Chair.  That's not the kind of Chair the
> GA needs.

  I don't agree at all here.  Campaigning is an intragal part of any elected
position.
The Chair is just such a position, in part.  I am happy to see Eric's Campaign
comments/statements/positions. >.;)  Especially these!

>
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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, 1 Mar 2001 03:54:54 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA Chair

 Jeff Williams wrote:-
I would tend to lessen the the emphasis on how much $$ anyone is willing to
provide with respect to GA Chair nominations.  However time and expertise
and time should play a most important role, IMHO.

- -You have not responded to the point I made, but you have responded to a
point I did not make as if I made it, which I did not, so I will now address
your point..:-)

Granted, whether or not a candidate has a slush fund is important. That is
why funding of the GA Chair should not treated as funding of the individual
according to any particular need, but should be treated as funding of the GA
as a whole, whose members have the discretion to extend support to the Chair
as they see fit. If the GA decides to give 100% of its funding to it's Chair
for travel expenses, so be it, but all funding must be filtered through, and
agreed by, the membership, whatever its source. IMO, that is the only way to
protect the authority, independence and integrity of the Chair, and in turn,
the GA, NC, DNSO, all the way to the top.
>
>
> If you read the ICANN Bylaws closely, you will see that the DNSO
already has a very high profile within the ICANN structure.

- - I find it very difficult to believe that a group that can't elect it's own
Chair enjoys a high profile. In the meaning of *high profile*, I include
self-esteem and confidence, without which, ability to function is
effectively crippled.

Jeff Williams wrote:-
  Seeking feedback from the "Highest Levels" is a bit obtuse to me as to
what you mean, Joanna.  Can you enumerate further?

- - If the GA were to take on the role of *obtaining* feedback directly from
relevant sources outside of  the ICANN structure, this would add value to
DNSO in a way that Constituencies could not emulate, since they each have a
partisan agenda, which the GA does not. That is one of its benefits and all
the more important for the GA to undertake this role if, as you say, the BoD
does not care to share insights.

Disseminating feedback to other interested persons is a separate issue, but
it's not an insurmountable problem when we have the internet at our
disposal....:-)

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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, 01 Mar 2001 03:23:37 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD Agreements

Sotiris and all remaining assembly members,

Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > WXW, Michael and all remaining assembly members,
> >
> >   I must also agree with William on this one.  The UDRP is an abomination
> >
> > of gargantuan purporting.  It is extra-legal, it thwarts due process, it
> > has less and less support on a global basis by stakeholders.  The
> > evidence
> > is simply overwhelming.  The UDRP should be suspended until reforms
> > are incorporated or done away with all together.
>
> I'm not convinced that the UDRP should be done
> away with completely. However, I have repeatedly
> called for a moratorium on UDRP cases NOT
> involving coined words.  I think that this should
> be seriously considered by ICANN as a face-saving
> move which would do much for its currently
> tarnished image among the ICW.

  This is one other approach to addressing the many problems
with the UDRP.  But it only addresses one of the problems
with the UDRP.  Hence our call for a suspension of the
UDRP process and consequently reform to the Registrar
contracts, and now it seems the Registry contract agreements,
even though the current UDRP has no language to address
Registries for new TLD's...  It seems that even the ICANN
BoD doesn't understand the UDRP language....

>  No trademark
> holder of a generic term (or any other dictionary
> term) is de facto entitled to a domain name!  The
> contention that this is so is ludicrous and is
> totally responsible for the bad press the UDRP has
> received.

  Agreed.  And this area was argued vercifiously before the current
UDRP was adopted.  It has also been debated and discussed on the
NCDNHC WG list dealing with this area.  (See relative Archives)

>  When a trademark is registered, there
> is no concommitant "rights" to a domain name
> granted with said registration!  A trademark is an
> exclusive right to use a word in a specific
> commercial context and NOT in all commerce
> generally!

  Also correct.  This is why there are "Classes" of TM's.

> This has somehow been
> overlooked/ignored and is the reason for the
> mounting (and already great) discontent with the
> ICANN and UDRP among the ICW.  WIPO must be
> reigned in or they will ultimately discredit ICANN
> completely.  I REITERATE MY CALL FOR A MORATORIUM
> ON ALL CURRENT/PENDING/FUTURE UDRP CASES THAT DO
> NOT INVOLVE EXPLICITLY COINED WORDS.  I believe
> that in cases of coined words the UDRP is indeed
> useful, but any other application of such a
> "policy" is detrimental and highly injurious to
> the interests of the ICW and ICANN.

  ALso agreed here as well.  In fact I would carry this statement
out a bit further.  The UDRP in it's current form has been, is currently
and shall remain injurious to any and all stakeholders of  "Common Marks"
or otherwise DN's.

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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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, 01 Mar 2001 03:37:26 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Chair

Joanne and all remaining assembly members,

Joanna Lane wrote:

>  Jeff Williams wrote:-
> I would tend to lessen the the emphasis on how much $$ anyone is willing to
> provide with respect to GA Chair nominations.  However time and expertise
> and time should play a most important role, IMHO.
>
> -You have not responded to the point I made, but you have responded to a
> point I did not make as if I made it, which I did not, so I will now address
> your point..:-)

  Well I beg to differ with you on this small point.  In your previous post
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00567.html , You stated,
"[Joanna]- I would wait until we are close to achieving online parity before
      passing judgment on the benefits of physical attendance. The value that
      both the NC and ICANN places on the GA can be measured by their
willingness
      to support it's existence, including financially. What support is
necessary
      needs to be quantified, but the bottom line can be determined by how much
      people have been willing to give to the cause on an ongoing basis, in
terms
      of their time, expertise and money."

I responded to you reference as it relates to the subject line of this thread
as you indicated.  You last sentence, "What support is necessary
      needs to be quantified, but the bottom line can be determined by how much
      people have been willing to give to the cause on an ongoing basis, in
terms
      of their time, expertise and money." , indicates clearly that MONEY "$$",
is a considering factor.  I respectively disagree.  >;)

>
>
> Granted, whether or not a candidate has a slush fund is important. That is
> why funding of the GA Chair should not treated as funding of the individual
> according to any particular need, but should be treated as funding of the GA
> as a whole, whose members have the discretion to extend support to the Chair
> as they see fit.

 Agreed.

> If the GA decides to give 100% of its funding to it's Chair
> for travel expenses, so be it, but all funding must be filtered through, and
> agreed by, the membership, whatever its source.

  Also agreed.

> IMO, that is the only way to
> protect the authority, independence and integrity of the Chair, and in turn,
> the GA, NC, DNSO, all the way to the top.

  Yes.

>
> >
> >
> > If you read the ICANN Bylaws closely, you will see that the DNSO
> already has a very high profile within the ICANN structure.
>
> - I find it very difficult to believe that a group that can't elect it's own
> Chair enjoys a high profile. In the meaning of *high profile*, I include
> self-esteem and confidence, without which, ability to function is
> effectively crippled.

  Of course you are correct here.  And this has been a systemic problem
with ICANN and the DNSO as well.  It remains so.

>
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:-
>   Seeking feedback from the "Highest Levels" is a bit obtuse to me as to
> what you mean, Joanna.  Can you enumerate further?
>
> - If the GA were to take on the role of *obtaining* feedback directly from
> relevant sources outside of  the ICANN structure, this would add value to
> DNSO in a way that Constituencies could not emulate, since they each have a
> partisan agenda, which the GA does not. That is one of its benefits and all
> the more important for the GA to undertake this role if, as you say, the BoD
> does not care to share insights.

  Also agreed and an area that the current DNSO administration has
for some odd reason, decidedly ignored or dismissed.

>
>
> Disseminating feedback to other interested persons is a separate issue, but
> it's not an insurmountable problem when we have the internet at our
> disposal....:-)

  Exactly right.  But as you know, most of the current and all of the previous
ICANN BoD members were not well versed in the use of the Internet....

>
>
> Regards,
> Joanna

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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, 1 Mar 2001 05:39:26 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Intake for WG-Review

Jeff and all remaining members,

I propose the following summary of comments from our recent discussion under
the thread of the GA Chair are passed to WG-Review Group for consideration
and possible inclusion in the summary report under the GA topic. If you
concur, please reply with a yes. Should you wish to discuss further, please
use the original subject thread.

Thanks,
Joanna

In order to protect the authority, independence and integrity of the GA, NC,
DNSO, it is recommended that the current DNSO administration addresses the
following issues.:-

1. The GA needs to be funded. Prospective funding of the GA Chair should not
be treated as funding of the individual according to any particular need,
but should be treated as funding of the GA as a whole. Members should have
the discretion to extend support to the Chair
as they see fit, determining the level of funding that will be necessary for
it's elected representative(s) at ICANN meetings, including travel expenses.
All funding for GA Chair/ Alternate Chair must be filtered through, and
agreed by, the membership, whatever its source.

2. Although review of ICANN Bylaws reveals that the DNSO already has a very
high profile within the ICANN structure, the GA, as a group within the DNSO,
does not enjoy the full benefit because it cannot elect it's own Chair. As a
direct result, the GA may suffer from lack of self-esteem and confidence,
without which, it's ability to function is effectively crippled. This has
been a systemic problem within DNSO and remains so.

3. The GA should take on the role of obtaining feedback directly from
relevant sources outside of  the ICANN structure, as this would add an
unique value to DNSO in a way that Constituencies could not emulate, since
they each have a partisan agenda, which the GA does not. That is one of its
benefits and all the more important for the GA to undertake this role if the
BoD does not care to share insights with DNSO GA.

>
>
>

- --
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, 01 Mar 2001 07:07:41 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Verisign.....

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0060_01C0A21E.4EA30900
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

VeriSign to Surrender Control Over 'Org,'
'Net' Web-Address Suffixes, Keeping 'Com'
By TED BRIDIS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- VeriSign Inc., which coordinates the world's master list of
Web addresses, has agreed to surrender control over "org" and "net" suffixes
in exchange for keeping long-term rights to manage lucrative "com" names.

Under terms of the surprise deal expected to be announced Thursday, VeriSign
wouldn't be compelled to spin off the part of its business that sells Web
addresses to consumers. That had been a requirement of a landmark 1999
agreement with the Clinton administration, which allowed VeriSign to retain
long-term management control over the Internet's master list of addresses.

Executives involved in the talks say the agreement was driven by VeriSign's
falling market share for sales of new Web addresses. VeriSign currently
sells fewer than half the world's 28.2 million Web addresses ending in
"com," "net" or "org" -- a big shift from its monopoly until June 1999.
There are now dozens of companies that sell Web addresses, though only
VeriSign, until now, has controlled the registry of addresses, for which it
collects a percentage of every sale.
The new agreement preserves VeriSign's control over the "com" master list
through 2007 and promises the company a special "presumption" that it will
be allowed to continue in that role afterward. Currently, dot-com addresses
comprise about 80% of the world's Web addresses.

Another factor driving the deal was that the perceived need for VeriSign to
split into two businesses -- one to manage the master list of Web addresses,
another to sell addresses -- had faded of late, as competitors no longer
feared the registry gave the company an unfair sales advantage.

The deal was quietly hammered out this week between VeriSign and the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Icann, a nonprofit
group that manages many of the Internet's core functions. Icann's board will
formally vote on the agreement by April 1. The deal also must be approved by
the Commerce Department. VeriSign's board is expected to approve the deal.

The agreement would effectively create three separate Internet registries to
replace the current unified one. But officials at Icann and VeriSign said
the change wouldn't disrupt Internet operations and that consumers likely
won't notice since the agreement deals largely with behind-the-scenes
issues. Icann is currently creating seven new Internet registries to manage
new domain names such as "biz," "info" and "museum." Those registries would
be separate from VeriSign, which in June 2000 purchased Network Solutions
Inc., original holder of the domain-name monopoly.

Under the deal, VeriSign would permanently surrender control of "org"
addresses by December 2002. The company also would establish an endowment of
$5 million toward the future operation of "org" addresses. It further agreed
to spend $200 million in research over 10 years toward making Internet
registries more efficient.

Icann indicated that it wants "org" Web addresses reserved only for
nonprofit organizations "after some appropriate transition period," a
restriction that hasn't been enforced in recent years. Details haven't been
worked out, though one Icann official suggested that current "org" Web sites
may be allowed to continue regardless of their affiliation with nonprofits.

VeriSign also will agree to give up control over "net" Web addresses by
January 2006; it would be allowed to bid for future rights to run that
registry, but approval by Icann was considered highly unlikely.

/Bruce James
[email-masked]

- ------=_NextPart_000_0060_01C0A21E.4EA30900
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2>VeriSign to Surrender Control Over=20
'Org,'<BR>'Net' Web-Address Suffixes, Keeping 'Com'</DIV>
<DIV>
<P><B>By T<FONT size=3D-1>ED</FONT> B<FONT size=3D-1>RIDIS</FONT> =
</B><BR><FONT=20
size=3D-1>Staff Reporter of </FONT><FONT size=3D-1>T</FONT><FONT=20
size=3D-2>HE</FONT><FONT size=3D-1> W</FONT><FONT =
size=3D-2>ALL</FONT><FONT size=3D-1>=20
S</FONT><FONT size=3D-2>TREET</FONT><FONT size=3D-1> J</FONT><FONT=20
size=3D-2>OURNAL</FONT><FONT size=3D-1></FONT><BR><B></B></P>
<P>WASHINGTON -- <A class=3Dcompany=20
onmouseover=3D"window.status=3D('  Quote Check for VRSN');return true"=20
onclick=3D"popup('vrsn','company')" =
onmouseout=3D"window.status=3D('');return true"=20
target=3DCompanyPopup=20
href=3D"http://interactive.wsj.com/pj/q-quote.cgi?sym=3Dvrsn&amp;type=3Dc=
ompany">VeriSign</A>=20
Inc., which coordinates the world's master list of Web addresses, has =
agreed to=20
surrender control over "org" and "net" suffixes in exchange for keeping=20
long-term rights to manage lucrative "com" names.</P>
<P>Under terms of the surprise deal expected to be announced Thursday, =
VeriSign=20
wouldn't be compelled to spin off the part of its business that sells =
Web=20
addresses to consumers. That had been a requirement of a landmark 1999 =
agreement=20
with the Clinton administration, which allowed VeriSign to retain =
long-term=20
management control over the Internet's master list of addresses.</P>
<DIV class=3Dinset>Executives involved in the talks say the agreement =
was driven=20
by VeriSign's falling market share for sales of new Web addresses. =
VeriSign=20
currently sells fewer than half the world's 28.2 million Web addresses =
ending in=20
"com," "net" or "org" -- a big shift from its monopoly until June 1999. =
There=20
are now dozens of companies that sell Web addresses, though only =
VeriSign, until=20
now, has controlled the registry of addresses, for which it collects a=20
percentage of every sale.</DIV>
<P>The new agreement preserves VeriSign's control over the "com" master =
list=20
through 2007 and promises the company a special "presumption" that it =
will be=20
allowed to continue in that role afterward. Currently, dot-com addresses =

comprise about 80% of the world's Web addresses.</P>
<P>Another factor driving the deal was that the perceived need for =
VeriSign to=20
split into two businesses -- one to manage the master list of Web =
addresses,=20
another to sell addresses -- had faded of late, as competitors no longer =
feared=20
the registry gave the company an unfair sales advantage.</P>
<P>The deal was quietly hammered out this week between VeriSign and the =
Internet=20
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Icann, a nonprofit group =
that=20
manages many of the Internet's core functions. Icann's board will =
formally vote=20
on the agreement by April 1. The deal also must be approved by the =
Commerce=20
Department. VeriSign's board is expected to approve the deal.</P>
<P>The agreement would effectively create three separate Internet =
registries to=20
replace the current unified one. But officials at Icann and VeriSign =
said the=20
change wouldn't disrupt Internet operations and that consumers likely =
won't=20
notice since the agreement deals largely with behind-the-scenes issues. =
Icann is=20
currently creating seven new Internet registries to manage new domain =
names such=20
as "biz," "info" and "museum." Those registries would be separate from =
VeriSign,=20
which in June 2000 purchased Network Solutions Inc., original holder of =
the=20
domain-name monopoly.</P>
<P>Under the deal, VeriSign would permanently surrender control of "org" =

addresses by December 2002. The company also would establish an =
endowment of $5=20
million toward the future operation of "org" addresses. It further =
agreed to=20
spend $200 million in research over 10 years toward making Internet =
registries=20
more efficient.</P>
<P>Icann indicated that it wants "org" Web addresses reserved only for =
nonprofit=20
organizations "after some appropriate transition period," a restriction =
that=20
hasn't been enforced in recent years. Details haven't been worked out, =
though=20
one Icann official suggested that current "org" Web sites may be allowed =
to=20
continue regardless of their affiliation with nonprofits.</P>
<P>VeriSign also will agree to give up control over "net" Web addresses =
by=20
January 2006; it would be allowed to bid for future rights to run that =
registry,=20
but approval by Icann was considered highly unlikely.</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2>/Bruce James<BR><A=20
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 =
size=3D2><BR></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0060_01C0A21E.4EA30900--

- --
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 #257
************************