Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #258
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, March 1 2001           Volume 01 : Number 258

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 08:24:27 -0500 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New TLD Agreements

Actually, I think you are mistaken about the assumption that legitimate
businesses wouldnt' go to court to protect their trademarks.  They have no
choice but to protect their trademarks from infringement, misuse, etc. 

I think that you would find that legitimate businesses would indeed have
taken many, if not all, of these cases to court.  The UDRP was devised, and
provides a low cost ability for someone engaged in a dispute, on either
side, to use a more cost effective, and shorter route to a decision.  Legal
redress remains an option, should either party be dissatisfied with the
outcome.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 12:58 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD Agreements

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.

> 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. 

- -- 
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
- --
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 06:59:21 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD Agreements

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:

> Actually, I think you are mistaken about the assumption that legitimate
> businesses wouldnt' go to court to protect their trademarks.

I just have a problem with the fox watching the hen house.  World Intellectual
Property Organization is designed to encourage and protect the rights of
holders of intellectual property.  It is like being tried and convicted and
sentenced by the policeman who arrested you.

I do not in principal disagree with a UDRP.  But I could not in good conscience
advise a country operating a ccTLD to use the existing system because of its'
bias.
A country must place its' National security and Cultural Identity above
trademark rights.  This same principal should apply to gTLD second level domain
names.

I believe that if we look at the Intellectual Property Support Organizations we
can find a model.  The problem is that they are so well organized and effective
there is no effective check and balance to moderate their objectives.  It is
like watching a professional sports team play a high school team.  We need to
level the playing field, not move to a new stadium. I truly believe that a
strong and vital GA and At Large are good places to begin to achieve a proper
balance.

Sincerely,

- --
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 09:09:32 -0600
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Qualifications for GA Chair?

Eric Dierker wrote:

> I submit that there are no listed Qualifications.  I began to make a list myself
> but then realized that every qualifier I used simply was a discrimination against
> an attribute I did not care for personally. I suppose you can have general ones
> like age, literacy capability to use the internet, but then you realize a person
> wouldn't be in the GA if they did not meet the minimums.
>

I absolutely agree.  The voters will decide what qualifications are important in each
(s)electon.  We know each other.  In making our informed choices, we put different
weight on the various possible determinants.  And, the weight applied to each
criteria will change with our development.  Knowledge of governance, fairness and
leadership may be the significant requirements at first, while technical involvement
may be the dominant criteria at some other stage.  We don't need to filter our
choices.

- --
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 07:50:09 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign.....

On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:07:41AM -0600, Bruce James wrote:
> VeriSign to Surrender Control Over 'Org,'
> 'Net' Web-Address Suffixes, Keeping 'Com'
> By TED BRIDIS
> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm

- -- 
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

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

Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:34:56 +0100
From: Robin Miller <[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.

Kent is right I've got to say...

I've seen a pretty sizable representative sample in my various wandering on the
net the last few years - and what I've seen are a lot of people that are
interested in a few things. ICANN and the UDRP are not included. lol it doesnt
make the top ten. 

But this is not as Kent would like to imply, due to lack of interest. Its due
also to ignorance. Most people online do not own domains or even plan to. Most
people don't mind being spoonfed their information like a baby in a highchair.
Heck some people get off to that. lol 

And of course, just because people aren't interested, doesn't mean the issue
isn't important.

UDRP? Well I kind of like parts of the UDRP. But the UDRP has a problem - its
not as fair as it could be and so, it gets abused here and there. But its a
step in the right direction. It just stumbled on the stairs a bit.

Robin
- --
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 11:52:32 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Intake for WG-Review

Joanna and all remaining assembly members,

  Yes.

  However there is a mechanism for electing a Chair now.  I also
believe that you mean Co-Chair in stead of Alternate Chair..
I also believe that ICANN has decided on a funding plan for the DNSO..

Joanna Lane wrote:

> 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.
>
> >
> >
> >

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 18:41:40 +0100
From: Robin Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Chair-NOMINATION-Charles Sha'ban

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> 
> I think Charles Sha'ban, of Egypt, who has shown great comittment to a big
> task of outreach (TAGI volunteered to translate the ICANN website into
> Arabic)  may serve us very well as Chair and it is my privilege to nominate
> him and ask for seconds from others who know him personally.

and does this fellow have an email address or is he subbed to this list?

Would be helpful. ;-) Does he have a website so the rest of us that don't know
him, can learn more about him? Personally I believe a strong part of being
qualified for being a chair in here is someone that can take the pressure that
this list can sometimes generate, and still remain impartial and fair.

Robin
- --
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 11:13:41 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

To Members of the Names Council:

With less than two weeks until the meeting in Melbourne, the ICANN community
now has three important sets of documents, possibly four, to review and
comment upon: the new TLD contracts (each with 25 unique appendices, many of
which are not yet posted); the discussion paper on the controversial
multilingual domain names; and now, the radical restructuring of the
agreements with Verisign (formerly NSI). The Agenda circulated on the ICANN
Announce list today also mentions that the Board will consider the "Final
report of the Ad Hoc Group on Numbering and Addressing," which, to the best
of my knowledge, has not been posted anywhere, in either "draft" or "final"
form.

Under Article III, Section (3)(b)(ii) of the ICANN Bylaws, any new policy
that will "substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third
parties" must follow a special process that allows a "reasonable
opportunity" for public comment. The public comment period must allow not
only a reasonable opportunity to post comments, but also a reasonable
opportunity to "see the comments of others, and to reply to those comments."
I believe that each of these topics is one which will "substantially affect"
the operation of the Internet and falls within these "reasonable
opportunity" provisions of the Bylaws.

If ICANN had posted just one of these three important documents on less than
30 days notice, I could understand how two weeks might be viewed as a
"reasonable opportunity" for public comment. Taken in the aggregate,
however, it is unreasonable, and in violation of the Bylaws, to expect
meaningful comment on all three, possibly four, of these important items.
The restructuring of the Verisign delegations, by itself, requires more than
two weeks of consultation.

To remedy this situation, I ask the Names Council to forward a request to
the Board and Staff asking that it promptly select *one* of these four items
(other than the Verisign contracts) for action in Melbourne and defer the
rest of the items for action (though not public discussion) until the
Stockholm meeting or one of the special monthly telephonic meetings of the
Board. With limited time for review, consultation, and comment prior to the
Melbourne meeting, such a clarification will allow the Internet community to
focus its attention on the most important item. Anything less will not
afford the community the "reasonable opportunity" for public comment
guaranteed under Article III of the Bylaws. It may also be appropriate, if
not required under the Bylas, to refer all of these items to the DNSO for
review.

Thank you for considering this request.

Very truly yours,

Bret A. Fausett

- --
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 14:15:48 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Intake for WG-Review

- --part1_1e.11f6add8.27cff9e4_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

yes

- --part1_1e.11f6add8.27cff9e4_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  COLOR="#8000ff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Franklin Gothic Book" LANG="0">yes</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_1e.11f6add8.27cff9e4_boundary--
- --
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 11:16:22 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] New TLD Agreements

Hello Marilyn,

Thursday, March 01, 2001, 5:24:27 AM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Actually, I think you are mistaken about the assumption that legitimate
> businesses wouldnt' go to court to protect their trademarks.  They have no
> choice but to protect their trademarks from infringement, misuse, etc. 

> I think that you would find that legitimate businesses would indeed have
> taken many, if not all, of these cases to court.  The UDRP was devised, and
> provides a low cost ability for someone engaged in a dispute, on either
> side, to use a more cost effective, and shorter route to a decision.  Legal
> redress remains an option, should either party be dissatisfied with the
> outcome.

Many many of these cases, Marilyn, would never have gone to court
simply because the UDRP give them a greater "right" to takes these
names than the law gives them.  The UDRP standards are vastly lower
than the standards that the law allows, and many of these cases would
never have gone to court simply because those companies know that no
court in the land would give them the result that the UDRP would.

The fact is that under the UDRP the burden of proof is shifted from
the plaintiff to the defendant.  The defendant must prove their case,
and the defendant is the one who has to go to the high expense of
filing a court case in order to prevent the reverse hijacking of their
domain name on grounds that no court would have permitted to happen.

The UDRP ENCOURAGES these cases, and is heavily slanted in favor of
the plaintiff in these cases, in fact the arbitration panels have a
predisposition to the plaintiff simply because the plaintiff is the
one who gets to shop the forum.

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who claims that the UDRP is a fair and
legitimate process is either blinding themselves to the facts, or has
a definite bias which is making them present the facts in an incorrect
manner.

- -- 
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: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:20:24 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA Chair-NOMINATION-Charles Sha'ban

Hello Robin,

Thursday, March 01, 2001, 9:41:40 AM, Robin Miller wrote:

> Would be helpful. ;-) Does he have a website so the rest of us that don't know
> him, can learn more about him? Personally I believe a strong part of being
> qualified for being a chair in here is someone that can take the pressure that
> this list can sometimes generate, and still remain impartial and fair.

Nice to see that you actually do agree with the sentiment I have been
expressing (and which you seemed to have been critical of) on this
list the last few days.

Would it not be appropriate to point out when a particular candidate
does not have the qualification you mention above?

Or is it only because it came from me that you color that kind of
behavior as some kind of "personal attack"  ?

- -- 
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: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 15:52:57 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [council] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

I would concur with Bret's position, especially to the extent that ICANN
constituents and the general public, as prompted by the inevitable media
coverage, _could_ hold these issues out as _evidence_ that ICANN is not
fulfilling its promise, or following its mission as expressed in the bylaws.

While I may not agree with the specific "action items" Bret proposes, I
would recommend that we (the NC) and ICANN staff find some compromise here.

peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Bret Fausett
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 3:14 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [council] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

To Members of the Names Council:

With less than two weeks until the meeting in Melbourne, the ICANN community
now has three important sets of documents, possibly four, to review and
comment upon: the new TLD contracts (each with 25 unique appendices, many of
which are not yet posted); the discussion paper on the controversial
multilingual domain names; and now, the radical restructuring of the
agreements with Verisign (formerly NSI). The Agenda circulated on the ICANN
Announce list today also mentions that the Board will consider the "Final
report of the Ad Hoc Group on Numbering and Addressing," which, to the best
of my knowledge, has not been posted anywhere, in either "draft" or "final"
form.

Under Article III, Section (3)(b)(ii) of the ICANN Bylaws, any new policy
that will "substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third
parties" must follow a special process that allows a "reasonable
opportunity" for public comment. The public comment period must allow not
only a reasonable opportunity to post comments, but also a reasonable
opportunity to "see the comments of others, and to reply to those comments."
I believe that each of these topics is one which will "substantially affect"
the operation of the Internet and falls within these "reasonable
opportunity" provisions of the Bylaws.

If ICANN had posted just one of these three important documents on less than
30 days notice, I could understand how two weeks might be viewed as a
"reasonable opportunity" for public comment. Taken in the aggregate,
however, it is unreasonable, and in violation of the Bylaws, to expect
meaningful comment on all three, possibly four, of these important items.
The restructuring of the Verisign delegations, by itself, requires more than
two weeks of consultation.

To remedy this situation, I ask the Names Council to forward a request to
the Board and Staff asking that it promptly select *one* of these four items
(other than the Verisign contracts) for action in Melbourne and defer the
rest of the items for action (though not public discussion) until the
Stockholm meeting or one of the special monthly telephonic meetings of the
Board. With limited time for review, consultation, and comment prior to the
Melbourne meeting, such a clarification will allow the Internet community to
focus its attention on the most important item. Anything less will not
afford the community the "reasonable opportunity" for public comment
guaranteed under Article III of the Bylaws. It may also be appropriate, if
not required under the Bylas, to refer all of these items to the DNSO for
review.

Thank you for considering this request.

Very truly yours,

Bret A. Fausett

- --
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 12:02:34 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [council] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

Thanks, Mike. I was asking the Board to state ahead of time what items might
be acted upon in Melbourne and to limit the action items to some discrete
set of issues that can be reviewed in the remaining time. You've said that
none of the items have been posted for action in Melbourne, but the
possibility that any of them might be acted upon Melbourne means that we are
required to read and comment upon them all.

As you probably know, I try very hard to follow these policy issues and,
when I think appropriate, make comments and suggestions. Like the vast
majority of those participating in these discussions, however, this is not
all I do. I simply see no way that I can review all of these documents
thoughtfully in the time provided given other responsibilities. I doubt I'm
alone in this. Some advance notice on what the Board might act upon in
Melbourne would help me, and I suspect others, prioritize the review.

On your last question, my personal belief is that a "reasonable opportunity
for comment" is nothing less than 30 days for most items. In an emergency,
the Board can and should take interim measures on less than 30 days notice,
with an appropriate request to the relevant Supporting Organization to
provide additional support and comment on final measures.

As to the matters I mentioned in my e-mail, here is what I recommend:

(a) The new TLD contracts should be the item pushed forward for public
comment and possible action by the Board in Melbourne. It is important to
push this forward so the testbed can get underway. Two weeks notice is
probably sufficient if this is the only item set for action.

(b) The discussion on multilingual domain names should be used as a fact
gathering exercise, and any problem areas identified should be referred to
the DNSO (for policy issues) and/or the PSO (for technical issues) for
review. 

(c) The Board should considering revising the contract with NSI to extend
the 18th month limitation on legal separation of the registry and registrar
by such time as necessary (4 months) to allow the more extensive
restructuring of the delegation to be addressed fully and completely in
Stockholm; and,

(d) No action or even public discussion should take place on the Ad Hoc
report, as I don't believe anyone has seen it yet.

My point though is that the community needs some guidance on the possible
actions for Melbourne. If anything is a possibility, then everything must be
reviewed. Thank you very much for your prompt response.

Very truly yours,

Bret

Mike Roberts wrote:

> Bret - someone with your long acquaintance with ICANN needs to look
> before you shoot.  None, repeat none, of the items you cite has been
> posted for action in Melbourne.  In fact, it would be useful for you
> and others to comment on how the Board can best balance the many
> demands it receives for timely action with the need for "Reasonable
> Opportunity for Comment."
> 
> - Mike
>  
> At 11:13 -0800 3/1/01, Bret Fausett wrote:
>> To Members of the Names Council:
>> 
>> With less than two weeks until the meeting in Melbourne, the ICANN community
>> now has three important sets of documents, possibly four, to review and
>> comment upon: the new TLD contracts (each with 25 unique appendices, many of
>> which are not yet posted); the discussion paper on the controversial
>> multilingual domain names; and now, the radical restructuring of the
>> agreements with Verisign (formerly NSI). The Agenda circulated on the ICANN
>> Announce list today also mentions that the Board will consider the "Final
>> report of the Ad Hoc Group on Numbering and Addressing," which, to the best
>> of my knowledge, has not been posted anywhere, in either "draft" or "final"
>> form.
>> 
>> Under Article III, Section (3)(b)(ii) of the ICANN Bylaws, any new policy
>> that will "substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third
>> parties" must follow a special process that allows a "reasonable
>> opportunity" for public comment. The public comment period must allow not
>> only a reasonable opportunity to post comments, but also a reasonable
>> opportunity to "see the comments of others, and to reply to those comments."
>> I believe that each of these topics is one which will "substantially affect"
>> the operation of the Internet and falls within these "reasonable
>> opportunity" provisions of the Bylaws.
>> 
>> If ICANN had posted just one of these three important documents on less than
>> 30 days notice, I could understand how two weeks might be viewed as a
>> "reasonable opportunity" for public comment. Taken in the aggregate,
>> however, it is unreasonable, and in violation of the Bylaws, to expect
>> meaningful comment on all three, possibly four, of these important items.
>> The restructuring of the Verisign delegations, by itself, requires more than
>> two weeks of consultation.
>> 
>> To remedy this situation, I ask the Names Council to forward a request to
>> the Board and Staff asking that it promptly select *one* of these four items
>> (other than the Verisign contracts) for action in Melbourne and defer the
>> rest of the items for action (though not public discussion) until the
>> Stockholm meeting or one of the special monthly telephonic meetings of the
>> Board. With limited time for review, consultation, and comment prior to the
>> Melbourne meeting, such a clarification will allow the Internet community to
>> focus its attention on the most important item. Anything less will not
>> afford the community the "reasonable opportunity" for public comment
>> guaranteed under Article III of the Bylaws. It may also be appropriate, if
>> not required under the Bylas, to refer all of these items to the DNSO for
>> review.
>> 
>> Thank you for considering this request.
>> 
>> Very truly yours,
>> 
>> Bret A. Fausett
> 

- --
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 15:46:01 -0500 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

Bret,

Please note that the VeriSign contracts are only a discussion item in
Melbourne.  The Board is not anticipating taking action on them until April
1st.

Chuck

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Thursday, March 01, 2001 2:14 PM
To:	[email-masked]
Cc:	[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject:	[ga] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

To Members of the Names Council:

With less than two weeks until the meeting in Melbourne, the ICANN community
now has three important sets of documents, possibly four, to review and
comment upon: the new TLD contracts (each with 25 unique appendices, many of
which are not yet posted); the discussion paper on the controversial
multilingual domain names; and now, the radical restructuring of the
agreements with Verisign (formerly NSI). The Agenda circulated on the ICANN
Announce list today also mentions that the Board will consider the "Final
report of the Ad Hoc Group on Numbering and Addressing," which, to the best
of my knowledge, has not been posted anywhere, in either "draft" or "final"
form.

Under Article III, Section (3)(b)(ii) of the ICANN Bylaws, any new policy
that will "substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third
parties" must follow a special process that allows a "reasonable
opportunity" for public comment. The public comment period must allow not
only a reasonable opportunity to post comments, but also a reasonable
opportunity to "see the comments of others, and to reply to those comments."
I believe that each of these topics is one which will "substantially affect"
the operation of the Internet and falls within these "reasonable
opportunity" provisions of the Bylaws.

If ICANN had posted just one of these three important documents on less than
30 days notice, I could understand how two weeks might be viewed as a
"reasonable opportunity" for public comment. Taken in the aggregate,
however, it is unreasonable, and in violation of the Bylaws, to expect
meaningful comment on all three, possibly four, of these important items.
The restructuring of the Verisign delegations, by itself, requires more than
two weeks of consultation.

To remedy this situation, I ask the Names Council to forward a request to
the Board and Staff asking that it promptly select *one* of these four items
(other than the Verisign contracts) for action in Melbourne and defer the
rest of the items for action (though not public discussion) until the
Stockholm meeting or one of the special monthly telephonic meetings of the
Board. With limited time for review, consultation, and comment prior to the
Melbourne meeting, such a clarification will allow the Internet community to
focus its attention on the most important item. Anything less will not
afford the community the "reasonable opportunity" for public comment
guaranteed under Article III of the Bylaws. It may also be appropriate, if
not required under the Bylas, to refer all of these items to the DNSO for
review.

Thank you for considering this request.

Very truly yours,

Bret A. Fausett

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

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 16:10:13 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

Will that Board discussion and vote be public or secret?

On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Bret,
> 
> Please note that the VeriSign contracts are only a discussion item in
> Melbourne.  The Board is not anticipating taking action on them until April
> 1st.
> 
> Chuck
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent:	Thursday, March 01, 2001 2:14 PM
> To:	[email-masked]
> Cc:	[email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject:	[ga] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment
> 
> To Members of the Names Council:
> 
> With less than two weeks until the meeting in Melbourne, the ICANN community
> now has three important sets of documents, possibly four, to review and
> comment upon: the new TLD contracts (each with 25 unique appendices, many of
> which are not yet posted); the discussion paper on the controversial
> multilingual domain names; and now, the radical restructuring of the
> agreements with Verisign (formerly NSI). The Agenda circulated on the ICANN
> Announce list today also mentions that the Board will consider the "Final
> report of the Ad Hoc Group on Numbering and Addressing," which, to the best
> of my knowledge, has not been posted anywhere, in either "draft" or "final"
> form.
> 
> Under Article III, Section (3)(b)(ii) of the ICANN Bylaws, any new policy
> that will "substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third
> parties" must follow a special process that allows a "reasonable
> opportunity" for public comment. The public comment period must allow not
> only a reasonable opportunity to post comments, but also a reasonable
> opportunity to "see the comments of others, and to reply to those comments."
> I believe that each of these topics is one which will "substantially affect"
> the operation of the Internet and falls within these "reasonable
> opportunity" provisions of the Bylaws.
> 
> If ICANN had posted just one of these three important documents on less than
> 30 days notice, I could understand how two weeks might be viewed as a
> "reasonable opportunity" for public comment. Taken in the aggregate,
> however, it is unreasonable, and in violation of the Bylaws, to expect
> meaningful comment on all three, possibly four, of these important items.
> The restructuring of the Verisign delegations, by itself, requires more than
> two weeks of consultation.
> 
> To remedy this situation, I ask the Names Council to forward a request to
> the Board and Staff asking that it promptly select *one* of these four items
> (other than the Verisign contracts) for action in Melbourne and defer the
> rest of the items for action (though not public discussion) until the
> Stockholm meeting or one of the special monthly telephonic meetings of the
> Board. With limited time for review, consultation, and comment prior to the
> Melbourne meeting, such a clarification will allow the Internet community to
> focus its attention on the most important item. Anything less will not
> afford the community the "reasonable opportunity" for public comment
> guaranteed under Article III of the Bylaws. It may also be appropriate, if
> not required under the Bylas, to refer all of these items to the DNSO for
> review.
> 
> Thank you for considering this request.
> 
> Very truly yours,
> 
> Bret A. Fausett
> 
> --
> 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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's warm here.<--

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

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 16:12:53 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANNWatch.org re-launch

I invite all members of the GA to the newly revised ICANNWatch site
http://www.icannwatch.org  

Features include lots of new content, and a web board.
- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's warm here.<--

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

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

Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:15:11 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Proposal for chair election rules for the GA

Comments, please.
- -----------------------------------------------

ELECTION RULES FOR THE DNSO GA
Version 0.1 - PROPOSED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON MARCH 1, 2001

These are the rules for electing the chair and alternate chair of the 
General assembly.

OVERVIEW
- --------
The process is an instance of Single Transferable Vote, the same procedure
as was used for the At-Large Election of ICANN.

The electors are the voting roster of the General Assembly:
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html

NOTE: Until the ICANN bylaws are changed, this procedure is an advisory
vote by the GA to advise the Names Council of its preferences.
This note shall be considered removed when the bylaws empower the GA
to elect its own chairs.

START OF ELECTION
- -----------------
The election process starts when the Secretariat announces that nominations
are open.
At the same time, the voting roster is closed, and remains the same for the
remainder of the election process. (New members can always be added, but do
not get a vote for the election).

NOMINATION
- ----------
All nominations and endorsements are made public.

Nominees for the Chair and Alternate Chair are sent to an email address
provided by the Secretariat.
The nomination period shall be at least one week.

After the close of the nomination period, endorsements for the candidates
are sent to an email address provided by the Secretariat.
The endorsement period shall be at least one week.

Before the end of the endorsement period, candidates that wish to be
considered for the post must have sent in an acceptance of the nomination.

SELECTION OF THE SLATE
- ----------------------
All candidates who have accepted the nomination, and had at least two 
endorsements from members of the voting roster of the General Assembly, are 
considered candidates.
Note: Candidates are allowed to endorse themselves. Members can endorse
multiple candidates.

ELECTION
- --------
Before the start of the election, the (outgoing) Chair selects at least 2
people who are not candidates to act as an election watchdog comittee. 
These receive copies of all ballots. The names of the watchdogs are public.

Voting is secret; only the secretariat and the watchdogs get to see the votes.

Each member of the General Assembly roster receives one ballot listing all
candidate names.
He/she then marks a preference, using "1" for the most favored candidate,
"2" for the second, and so on. There is no requirement to mark all names.

Ballots are sent to an address provided by the Secretariat.

The election period shall be at least one week.

SELECTION OF THE CHAIR
- ----------------------
The number of ballots for each candidate where he is ranked first is counted.
If one candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, he/she is the winner.

If not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and the ballots
for that person are counted for the candidate who is ranked next on that 
ballot. If there is no ranked candidate left, the ballot is discarded.
If two or more candidates tie for fewest votes, the one listed first on the
ballot is discarded. (NOTE: this choice is essentially random. But flipping
a coin is a process that cannot be repeated by the watchdogs.)

The process is repeated until one candidate has more than 50% of the vote.

SELECTION OF THE ALTERNATE CHAIR
- --------------------------------
The same process as for chair is used, but the candidate selected for chair
is eliminated before the counting starts.

(NOTE: This is likely to be a different candidate than the runner-up in the
selection procedure for chair, for instance when 90% of the electorate rank 
one person first and another second, while the remaining 10% vote for a 
third. Re-running the process is considered more likely to select a team 
that can work well together.)

- --
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 #258
************************