Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #259
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, March 2 2001            Volume 01 : Number 259

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 21:17:05 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] DNSO role in DNS policy

The ICANN bylaws (Article VI, Section 2) state that 
"(b) The Supporting Organizations shall serve as advisory bodies to the Board, 
with the primary responsibility for developing and recommending substantive 
policies regarding those matters falling within their specific 
responsibilities, as described in this Article VI (including VI-A, VI-B and VI-
C).

(c) The Board shall refer proposals for substantive policies not received from 
a Supporting Organization to the Supporting Organization, if any, with primary 
responsibility for the area to which the proposal relates for initial 
consideration and recommendation to the Board."

There is little doubt that the proposed changes to the Verisign agreements 
represent major policy changes.  They propose to change the policy that 
eventually the registry and registrars for *.com must not have the same owners, 
they also look at changing the nature of *.org.  It does not get much bigger or 
wide ranging than this.

I first note that the DNSO did not originate the proposed policy change and 
there doesn't seem to have been any discussion at all about this within the 
DNSO.

But more importantly the bylaws are absolutely clear that the Board *must* 
refer these proposals to the DNSO which shall initially consider them and 
recommend for or against them to the Board.  Clauses (e) and (f) make it clear 
that the Board should not adopt any policy change unless the SO has recommended 
it (unless it has been referred back to SO at least once)

The Names Council is responsible for management of consenus building within the 
DNSO so they need to set up a process of consulation.  This I suspect would 
take a couple of months at least.

The staff proposal is that the Board *must* adopt the proposal by 1 April 
2001.  I contend that the Board *must not* adopt any such proposal.  It must 
refer it to the DNSO which will consider and consult on it before making a 
recommendation.  This takes more than a couple of weeks - huge issues are at 
stake.

Please note I do not oppose necessairly the propsed changes to the agreement 
with Verisign and affected policies.  I just believe steam rolling this 
therough the Board in less than a month will make a mockery of the bylaws and 
goodwill.  We are talking agreements which will last 7 - 10 years - we need 
more than a month to consider then and we need to follow the bylaws and have 
them go through the normal DNSO consultation process.  Names Council may want 
to consider a special working group on the issue.

DPF

- --
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 13:08:45 -0800
From: "'Kent Crispin'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD Agreements

On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 11:16:22AM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> 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.

It's not necessary to have a "right" in order to take something to 
court.  It frequently happens that a company with lots of money can win 
a completely unjustified case, simply because the defendant doesn't 
have the money to defend.

> 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.

See above...  Companies go to court all the time even when they have
worthless cases.  Even small companies do this -- we know one obvious 
example that I won't bother to name...

> 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.

Your faith in the courts is touching, but sadly naive.

> 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.

Actually, it is you who has a definite bias.

- -- 
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, 1 Mar 2001 16:21:43 -0500 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

Michael,

I assume you are not asking this question of me because I obviously cannot
speak for ICANN.  The points I communicated to Bret were in the information
that ICANN made public today.

Chuck

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Thursday, March 01, 2001 4:10 PM
To:	Gomes, Chuck
Cc:	'Bret Fausett'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [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 13:29:35 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO role in DNS policy

On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:17:05PM +0000, [email-masked] wrote:
> The ICANN bylaws (Article VI, Section 2) state that 
> "(b) The Supporting Organizations shall serve as advisory bodies to the Board, 
> with the primary responsibility for developing and recommending substantive 
> policies regarding those matters falling within their specific 
> responsibilities, as described in this Article VI (including VI-A, VI-B and VI-
> C).
> 
> (c) The Board shall refer proposals for substantive policies not received from 
> a Supporting Organization to the Supporting Organization, if any, with primary 
> responsibility for the area to which the proposal relates for initial 
> consideration and recommendation to the Board."

You left out section (g):

    (g) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION 2 IS INTENDED TO LIMIT THE POWERS OF THE
    BOARD OR THE CORPORATION act on matters not within the scope of
    primary responsibility of a Supporting Organization or TO TAKE
    ACTIONS THAT THE BOARD FINDS ARE NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO FURTHER
    THE PURPOSES OF THE CORPORATION. 
        [Emphasis added]

If something of a timely and important nature comes up, the board to
fully empowered to act. 

> There is little doubt that the proposed changes to the Verisign agreements 
> represent major policy changes.  They propose to change the policy that 
> eventually the registry and registrars for *.com must not have the
> same owners, they also look at changing the nature of *.org.  It does
> not get much bigger or wide ranging than this. 
> 
> I first note that the DNSO did not originate the proposed policy change and 
> there doesn't seem to have been any discussion at all about this within the 
> DNSO.

No surprise there.  The DNSO doesn't originate anything.

> But more importantly the bylaws are absolutely clear that the Board *must* 
> refer these proposals to the DNSO which shall initially consider them and 
> recommend for or against them to the Board.  Clauses (e) and (f) make
> it clear that the Board should not adopt any policy change unless the SO
> has recommended it (unless it has been referred back to SO at least
> once)

Clause (g) makes it clear that the board can act regardless of clauses 
(e) and (f).

- -- 
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, 1 Mar 2001 11:26:04 -0800
From: Mike Roberts <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [council] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

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, 01 Mar 2001 14:35:54 -0500
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [council] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

Mike, if you are correct I am relieved. 

Now will you explain to me why Louis Touton's message informing us of the Verisign/ORG agreement was entitled "Additional Melbourne meeting topics." ???

>>> Mike Roberts <[email-masked]> 03/01/01 02:26PM >>>
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: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 00:09:18 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [council] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

May I suggest a practical way?
There should be a page on the ICANN site where all the decisions/document
underway should be listed with their current status and agenda (and links
to comment sites when appropriate). This should be presented together with
the meeting periods. This way everything would be visually clear to everyone.
It should also be accepted in the bylaw, that the BoD could not take any
decision out of this agenda, except in expressly noting it.
Jefsey

On 21:02 01/03/01, Bret Fausett said:
>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

- --
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 18:35:51 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO role in DNS policy

<snip> 

> > I first note that the DNSO did not originate the proposed policy
> > change and there doesn't seem to have been any discussion at all
> > about this within the DNSO.
> 
> No surprise there.  The DNSO doesn't originate anything.
> 
> > But more importantly the bylaws are absolutely clear that the Board
> > *must* refer these proposals to the DNSO which shall initially
> > consider them and recommend for or against them to the Board. 
> > Clauses (e) and (f) make it clear that the Board should not adopt
> > any policy change unless the SO has recommended it (unless it has
> > been referred back to SO at least once)
> 
> Clause (g) makes it clear that the board can act regardless of clauses
> (e) and (f).
> 
And this is precisely why there are so many problems with ICANN's 
decisions.  It is NOT bottom up and NOT transparent.

> 
> -- 
> 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-full" 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 15:39:41 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [council] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 02:35:54PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> Mike, if you are correct I am relieved. 
> 
> Now will you explain to me why Louis Touton's message informing us of
> the Verisign/ORG agreement was entitled "Additional Melbourne meeting
> topics." ???

Note the distinction between "discussion" and "action".

> >>> Mike Roberts <[email-masked]> 03/01/01 02:26PM >>>
> 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

- -- 
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: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 12:13:16 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Chair-NOMINATION-Charles Sha'ban

At 18:41 1/03/01 +0100, Robin Miller wrote:
>
>
>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?

I don't think Roberto had a website, or even a personal domain...
Charles has been active in the Review WG.
"Charles Shaban" <[email-masked]>

 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.
>
I agree. Especially the moderator role requires good background knowledge
about participants and sound judgement.

- --Joop--
Former bootstrap of the CA/idno
       The Polling Booth 
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --
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 19:39:47 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [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.

If all the documents had been posted in time for at least a two 
week comments period, I might agree, even though the .BIZ issue is 
far from settled.  There are potentially literally thousands of 
businesses at stake. 

However, there is insufficient time to post them and have a 
reasonable period for public comment.  It will have been a hastily 
made decision once again, most of it having been done behind 
closed doors and answerable to whom?

> 
> (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-full" 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #259
************************