Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #262
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, March 4 2001            Volume 01 : Number 262

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

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 23:38:01 +0100 (MET)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO election of a Chair and an Alternate Chair to the GA

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

  DNSO election of a Chair and an Alternate Chair to the General Assembly,
                                Mar-Apr 2001

2 March 2001

  I. The ICANN Bylaws http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm, Article VI-B,
     Section 2 (i) states that the Names Council shall elect the Chairman of
     the GA annually.

 II. On 26th of February
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010226.NCtelecon-minutes.html 
     (not yet published, will be available shortly), the
     Names Council has decided to invite the GA to manage an election
     process to select a nominee for appointment by the NC to the position
     of Chair of the GA.

     The NC decided to proceed the election as last year, without changing
     the Bylaws, and requested the Secretariat to determine dates and move
     process forward.

III. The Secretariat determined with Roberto Gaetano and Harald Alvestrand,
     the DNSO GA Chairs, and Philip Sheppard, NC Chair, that the 2001
     election will take place between 2nd March and 10 April 2001, with the
     following agenda:
        o Friday, 02 Mar - Remider about voting roster, two weeks to
          register
        o Friday, 16 Mar - Call for nominations issued
        o Friday, 23 Mar - Call for endorsements issued
        o Friday, 30 Mar - List of candidates closes
        o Saturday, 31 Mar - Vote of the GA voting registry initiated
        o Saturday, 07 Apr - Vote of the GA voting registry closes
        o Sunday, 08 Apr - Results calculated
        o Tuesday, 10 Apr - NC elects the Chair and Alternate from the
          candidates ranked by the GA vote

 IV. On 1st of March
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.1.html,
     Harald Alvestrand, the DNSO GA Alternate Chair proposed the Election
     Rules for the DNSO GA. These rules will be subject to vote by the DNSO
     GA between Friday 16 March and Friday 23 March.

     Once the Election Rules approved, the practical detail of
     implementation will be published.

     All nominations, acceptances and endorsements will be provided in the
     sections below.

  V. Nomination of candidates for election to the Chair of the General
     Assembly,

          open Friday 16 March 2001, 18:00 CET, close Friday 23 March
          2001, 18:00 CET

          The acceptance period close on Friday 23 March 2001 at 21:00 CET
          (For local time in other places see
          http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

 VI. Endorsement of candidates for election to the Chair of the General
     Assembly,

          open Friday 23 March 2001, 23:00 CET, close Friday 30 March
          2001, 23:00 CET
          (For local time in other places see
          http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

VII. Election of the Chair and Alternate Chair to the General Assembly by
     the General Assembly - this procedure is an advisory vote by the GA to
     advise the Names Council of its preferences.

          open Saturday 31 March 2001, 18:00 CET, close Saturday 7
          April 2001, 18:00 CET
          (For local time in other places see
          http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

          The results will be announced no later than Sunday 8 April
          2001, at 24:00 CET.

VIII.Election of the Chair to the General Assembly by the Names Council

          During the NC teleconference, 10 April 2001, 22:00 CET 
          (For local time in other places see
          http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

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

                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

- --
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, 2 Mar 2001 23:43:47 +0100 (MET)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC Melbourne meeting, 11 March 2001, agenda

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010311.NCmelbourne-agenda.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

       DNSO Names Council Melbourne Meeting on 11 March 2001 - agenda

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

2 March 2001

Date, time and webcast

  1. The DNSO Names Council meeting in Melbourne will be held on 11 March
     2001, 14:00 - 17:00, [@ MECC, the LaTrobe Theatre] .

     (former day 18:00 Los Angeles, 21:00 New York, 11 March 3:00 UTC,
      4:00 CET, 14:00 Melbourne)

      ------------------------------------------------------------
      Local time between 30 October 2000 and end March 2001.
      ------------------------------------------------------------
      Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC          3:00
      ------------------------------------------------------------
      California, USA                            UTC-8+0DST  18:00 former day
      Missouri, USA                              UTC-6+0DST  20:00 former day
      Monterrey, Mexico                          UTC-6+0DST  20:00 former day
      Washington DC, USA                   (EST) UTC-5+0DST  21:00 former day
      Panama, Panama                             UTC-5+0DST  21:00 former day
      St.Thomas, Virgin Islands                  UTC-4+0DST  22:00 former day
      Santiago, Chile                            UTC-4+1DST  23:00 former day
      Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST   0:00
      London, United Kingdom                     UTC+0+0DST   3:00
      Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+0DST   4:00
      Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+0DST   4:00
      Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+0DST   4:00
      Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+0DST   4:00
      Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST  12:00
      Tokyo, Japan                               UTC+9+0DST  12:00
      Melbourne, Australia                      UTC+10+1DST  14:00
      Auckland, New Zealand                     UTC+12+1DST  16:00
      ------------------------------------------------------------
      The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2001, 2:00 or 3:00 local time
      ------------------------------------------------------------
      For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

     Please visit http://www.icann.org/melbourne/ for details about all
     ICANN meetings (schedule, agendas, meeting rooms, hotels, visas, etc).

  2. The NC will be webcast by Berkman Center, thanks to Ben Edelman
     [email-masked]

     Access will be via http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/ as
     usual.
     Requires RealPlayer 5.0 or later and a 14.4Kbps or faster modem.

NC Agenda for Sunday 11th March 2-5pm Melbourne

Scheduled time: 180 mins

Running time: 160 mins

  1. Approval of agenda (Philip Sheppard) 10 mins

  2. Business Plan (120 mins)

     - discussion of overall shape of plan recommended by the Business Plan
     task force
     - discussion in detail of each of the 8 objectives and proposed
     strategies introduced by:

          2.1. UDRP - (nominee from Caroline Chicoine)
          2.2. New TLDs Philip Sheppard
          2.3. Who is - Paul Kane
          2.4. ccTLDs Peter de Blanc
          2.5. Multilingual domain names Hiro Hotta (TBC)
          2.6. Review implementation Theresa Swinehart (TBC)
          2.7. NC secretariat Erica Roberts
          2.8. NC funding Roger Cochetti (TBC)

               - prioritisation
               - implementation
               - formation of interim committees

  3. Budget Committee (Roger Cochetti) - 20 mins

          - fund raising
          - search committee report (Erica Roberts)
          - enforcement of dues

  4. GA chair election - Elisabeth Porteneuve - 5 mins

  5. ICANN consultation periods - Peter de Blanc - 5 mins

  6. AOB

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

                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

- --
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 14:44:10 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can ask substantive questions

Will someone in position to speak for the Melbourne meeting please address the
concern stated by Marilyn in this post, just for confirmation.

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:

>
> I recommend that the priority be ensuring, in a civil and organized manner,
> that there is ample opportunity, in the GA, in the public forum, and if
> possible/OR useful, in the Constituencies, to hear a short summary of the
> status, and ask questions, related to both the TLDs and the Verisign/NSI
> contract.  I think that is what is proposed.

As I read the schedule all of the mentioned subjects will be addressed at the
ICANN PUBLIC FORUM AND BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 12.

I find no indication that any matter other than procedural will be taken for
action, as in voting and passing a resolution, at any of the meetings, of the
Board of Directors.

I would appreciate being corrected if I am wrong.

- --
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: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 13:48:27 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Helping the nomination process along [was: Proposal for chair  election rules for the GA]

On 04:46 2/03/01 -0800, William X. Walsh said:
>
>This type of "mass nomination" is counter productive, and is exactly
>what this process does not need.
>

There is no mass nomination. It is in a member's own hands to nominate few
or many.

>Also, listing people without their prior consent is more than a little
>impolite.
>

Pray, Your  Politeness,  tell us then what this "process" needs.  More delay? 

What are you afraid of exactly? That the voters do not know who to
nominate? That they do not know who to elect?
Many of those who post here have already made their reputation. 
Roberto called for a replacement well before December. It is past time that
this Assembly elects itself a Chair. 

This voters list is already published on the DNSO website. 

Since no passwords are issued, nobody is being spammed.

- --joop 

The Polling Booth
http://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: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 12:55:35 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Chair-NOMINATION-Charles Sha'ban

On 14:12 2/03/01 +0100, Robin Miller said:

>Glad we agree. I'm not critising, I just want some more information in
which to
>make an informed decision.
>

Yes, my fault actually. 
I did not expect that Charles wasn't even on this list.
I expect him to join us shortly, though.

But my point was really that there may be good silent potential Chairs
among us. 
Only by shining the light on us all can be bring out the hidden talent.

- --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: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 16:46:48 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Melbourne - Preliminary Agenda

I am sorry for missing it but where will the GA meeting be?

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> - administrivia (from Chair, Secretariat, ...)
> - feedback from Constituency meetings (and WGs?)
> - Chair election
> - DNSO review
> - Individuals
> - AOB
>
> As some discussion has been going on about remote participation it may be
> interesting to add:
> - remote participation
> - funding for webcast (without this one the former is moot)
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 15:12:11 +1300
From: David Farrar <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: More ICANN "Transparency"

On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 07:41:59 -0800, you wrote:

>Apparently Verisign approached ICANN with this proposal; the ICANN staff
>nailed down the details; ICANN put the proposal out for public comment.
>I know that people would love to sit here and wallow in conspiracy
>theories, but this is not a done deal; the board hasn't voted on it, and
>I'm quite sure that they haven't made up their mind to accept it or
>reject it -- there are lots of REAL questions here:

The Board should not vote on it (at this stage).  They should follow
the bylaws and refer it to the DNSO for a recommendation - at least on
the policy issues involved.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 15:23:23 +1300
From: David Farrar <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 08:33:23 -0500 , you wrote:

>
>I am confused about the angst here... it appears at least one or two of
>these items posted by ICANN will be just reports.  But the larger items, the
>TLDs and the Verisign/NSI contract are posted, I believe, not as action
>items, but so they can be discussed, and public (and written comments)
>taken.  

But the NSI contract we are told *must* be approved by 1 April.  This
still gives very little time even if the decision is not made until 1
April rather than at ICANN Melbourne.

>The Verisign/NSI contract isn't a policy issue, per se, as far as I
>can tell, although the implications of the outcome are important for the
>Internet stakeholders/community.   Which is why it is posted.  

I believe it is clearly a policy issue.  Current policy is that the
*.com registry must eventually have a separate ownership to any *.com
registrars.  The proposed contract which comes out of the blue to the
public overturns that policy.  I also point out that this is not a
minor policy but one of the long-standing issues which actually led to
the creation of ICANN - proper competition in *.com.

If the Board does not consult the DNSO on these issues, then really
why bother having one.  What I believe is the sensible way forward is
for the Board at Melbourne to refer the policy implications of the
proposed contract to the DNSO for a recommendation, giving them say a
three month deadline to consult and try and achieve consensus on.

>Look, I feel a little overburdened by the reading, which I don't expect to
>be "light". But ICANN, and all of us are trying to do our best. And these
>documents are obviously complicated, and take time.  

Which is why it is not acceptable for an issue of this magnitude to
try and be pushed through in less than a month.  

>I recommend that the priority be ensuring, in a civil and organized manner,
>that there is ample opportunity, in the GA, in the public forum, and if
>possible/OR useful, in the Constituencies, to hear a short summary of the
>status, and ask questions, related to both the TLDs and the Verisign/NSI
>contract.  I think that is what is proposed.

Certainly those at Melbourne should discuss this and ask questions.
But this should not be a substitute for formal referral to the DNSO
for consideration as outlined in the bylaws.

A contract which will bind ICANN to things for 7 - 10 years should not
be rushed through in a month.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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, 2 Mar 2001 18:33:11 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Helping the nomination process along [was: Proposal  for chair  election rules for the GA]

Hello Joop,

I'll set aside your snide remark and respond to the parts that warrant
it.

Friday, March 02, 2001, 4:48:27 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> tell us then what this "process" needs.  More delay?

Progress, and we are seeing that.  Outside processes only confuse
matters, and that is magnified when the process leads to a process
where people are encouraged to nominate people without public
statements of that, and without giving any background to their
nomination.

> What are you afraid of exactly?

I'm not afraid of anything, I'm pointing out that the system has a
process, and, albeit very late, it is not being progressed.  A counter
productive solution is not what is needed.

> Since no passwords are issued, nobody is being spammed.

No, but you have listed them all as "candidates" for nomination, and
the long list encourages people to nominate without the burden of
defending their nomination, which is a part of ANY responsible
nomination process.

- -- 
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: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 19:10:45 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Melbourne - Preliminary Agenda

Hello Eric,

Friday, March 02, 2001, 4:46:48 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> I am sorry for missing it but where will the GA meeting be?

http://www.icann.org/melbourne/

- -- 
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: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 19:08:28 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 03:23:23PM +1300, David Farrar wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 08:33:23 -0500 , you wrote:
> 
> >
> >I am confused about the angst here... it appears at least one or two of
> >these items posted by ICANN will be just reports.  But the larger items, the
> >TLDs and the Verisign/NSI contract are posted, I believe, not as action
> >items, but so they can be discussed, and public (and written comments)
> >taken.  
> 
> But the NSI contract we are told *must* be approved by 1 April.  This
> still gives very little time even if the decision is not made until 1
> April rather than at ICANN Melbourne.

The April 1 date is based on the May 10 deadline:

    "The existing ICANN-NSI Registry Agreement (covering the .com, .net,
    and.org registries) provides (in Section 23) that the Agreement will
    expire on 10 November 2003, unless NSI (now VeriSign) separates
    legal ownership of its Registry Services business from its registrar
    business within 18 months of the signing of the agreement, or May
    10, 2001."

Something must happen by May 10; the DoC must go through whatever
approval process it requires (which could easily take a month). 

> >The Verisign/NSI contract isn't a policy issue, per se, as far as I
> >can tell, although the implications of the outcome are important for the
> >Internet stakeholders/community.   Which is why it is posted.  
> 
> I believe it is clearly a policy issue.  Current policy is that the
> *.com registry must eventually have a separate ownership to any *.com
> registrars.  The proposed contract which comes out of the blue to the
> public overturns that policy.  I also point out that this is not a
> minor policy but one of the long-standing issues which actually led to
> the creation of ICANN - proper competition in *.com.
> 
> If the Board does not consult the DNSO on these issues, then really
> why bother having one. 

The Board *is* consulting with the DNSO.  The time is compressed.  

> What I believe is the sensible way forward is
> for the Board at Melbourne to refer the policy implications of the
> proposed contract to the DNSO for a recommendation, giving them say a
> three month deadline to consult and try and achieve consensus on.

That would be nice.  It also would have been nice if the ICANN staff and
NSI could have started working on this 9 months ago, but the ICANN staff
has been working on some other things -- the new gTLDs, for example -- 
they are behind on that, as well.

> >Look, I feel a little overburdened by the reading, which I don't expect to
> >be "light". But ICANN, and all of us are trying to do our best. And these
> >documents are obviously complicated, and take time.  
> 
> Which is why it is not acceptable for an issue of this magnitude to
> try and be pushed through in less than a month.  

ICANN is resource-constrained.  They aren't a government, remember: they
can't just print some more money and hire more lawyers; they can't raise
your taxes.  Perhaps more relevant: they don't have any authority to
tell NSI how or when to negotiate. 

> >I recommend that the priority be ensuring, in a civil and organized manner,
> >that there is ample opportunity, in the GA, in the public forum, and if
> >possible/OR useful, in the Constituencies, to hear a short summary of the
> >status, and ask questions, related to both the TLDs and the Verisign/NSI
> >contract.  I think that is what is proposed.
> 
> Certainly those at Melbourne should discuss this and ask questions.
> But this should not be a substitute for formal referral to the DNSO
> for consideration as outlined in the bylaws.
> 
> A contract which will bind ICANN to things for 7 - 10 years should not
> be rushed through in a month.

ICANN simply doesn't have the power, authority, or mechanism at its
disposal that you seem to think it does.  Of course it would be nice if
there was lots of time, but it isn't there.

It might be that the proposed agreements are not good for the Internet
Community.  It may be that the best strategy for the ICANN board at this
point is to simply let the contracts expire on May 10, and let the chips
fall where they may -- seems irresponsible on the face of it, but maybe
it is the best course of action.  If you think so, then by all means
send your cogent comments to the Board.  But I don't think that
complaints about process are going to have any effect -- it seems to me
that this is in fact a genuine emergency situation, where the Board is
forced to make a decision under tight time constraints, and I don't
think they like it any better than any one else. 

- -- 
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: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 16:17:31 -0500 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] yet another idea to improve knowledge...

Let me try again with an idea or two:  Like most of you. I'll read, but I'll
end up with a lot of questions. I'd like to ensure that there are many/ample
opportunities to have civil discourse about questions. I see no need to
assume anything at this time about any outcome.  

IF it turns out that sufficient consultation time isn't possible, after we
go through Melbourne, then anyone can recommend that the board not take
action, and seek extensions.

I personally would put the attention to the Verisign/NSI contract first as
the priority, with the new TLDs (unchartered) next. Other things can
probably be delayed, from my perspective, but I'm interested in how others
think about this? 

The DNSO, the ASO, and the PSO will all have demanding schedules to provide
review and consultation. The Constituencies need to consider revising their
own agendas to allow discussion. Folks, this is after all reality.
Emergencies and changed agendas DO happen. 

I'm not happy with the time frame. I'm pretty sure that ICANN isn't either.
But I do not doubt that they are hard working, committed, and overworked.  

So are many of us. How about less time focused on what we can't do, and
resent, and more time on seeing what we can do, and then taking a decision
about a recommendation from that?

One thing I've noticed over the years: a common goal in a divided group to
try to work on something can also be a cohesive and coalescing
event/activity. Imagine that: the GA with an agenda, and an agreement to
offer constructive comments, not just complain about process.

Now, I haven't asked, but I bet that if the chair invited ICANN to give a
short overview and answer questions, they would do their best to attend.
Then, let me have an online fantasy: WE, in the GA, would prepare questions,
even perhaps drafting them ahead of time so the chair could read them and
save some time, and ensure that they are asked in a civil and civilized
manner, and so that the remote participants could submit questions with
sufficient probability of being included in the batch of questions,  and we
could have a productive and useful hour...

WOW. Now that's a GA I'd love to attend.

Okay, enough fun. 

Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 10:08 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various
forums, we can as k substantive questions

On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 03:23:23PM +1300, David Farrar wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 08:33:23 -0500 , you wrote:
> 
> >
> >I am confused about the angst here... it appears at least one or two of
> >these items posted by ICANN will be just reports.  But the larger items,
the
> >TLDs and the Verisign/NSI contract are posted, I believe, not as action
> >items, but so they can be discussed, and public (and written comments)
> >taken.  
> 
> But the NSI contract we are told *must* be approved by 1 April.  This
> still gives very little time even if the decision is not made until 1
> April rather than at ICANN Melbourne.

The April 1 date is based on the May 10 deadline:

    "The existing ICANN-NSI Registry Agreement (covering the .com, .net,
    and.org registries) provides (in Section 23) that the Agreement will
    expire on 10 November 2003, unless NSI (now VeriSign) separates
    legal ownership of its Registry Services business from its registrar
    business within 18 months of the signing of the agreement, or May
    10, 2001."

Something must happen by May 10; the DoC must go through whatever
approval process it requires (which could easily take a month). 

> >The Verisign/NSI contract isn't a policy issue, per se, as far as I
> >can tell, although the implications of the outcome are important for the
> >Internet stakeholders/community.   Which is why it is posted.  
> 
> I believe it is clearly a policy issue.  Current policy is that the
> *.com registry must eventually have a separate ownership to any *.com
> registrars.  The proposed contract which comes out of the blue to the
> public overturns that policy.  I also point out that this is not a
> minor policy but one of the long-standing issues which actually led to
> the creation of ICANN - proper competition in *.com.
> 
> If the Board does not consult the DNSO on these issues, then really
> why bother having one. 

The Board *is* consulting with the DNSO.  The time is compressed.  

> What I believe is the sensible way forward is
> for the Board at Melbourne to refer the policy implications of the
> proposed contract to the DNSO for a recommendation, giving them say a
> three month deadline to consult and try and achieve consensus on.

That would be nice.  It also would have been nice if the ICANN staff and
NSI could have started working on this 9 months ago, but the ICANN staff
has been working on some other things -- the new gTLDs, for example -- 
they are behind on that, as well.

> >Look, I feel a little overburdened by the reading, which I don't expect
to
> >be "light". But ICANN, and all of us are trying to do our best. And these
> >documents are obviously complicated, and take time.  
> 
> Which is why it is not acceptable for an issue of this magnitude to
> try and be pushed through in less than a month.  

ICANN is resource-constrained.  They aren't a government, remember: they
can't just print some more money and hire more lawyers; they can't raise
your taxes.  Perhaps more relevant: they don't have any authority to
tell NSI how or when to negotiate. 

> >I recommend that the priority be ensuring, in a civil and organized
manner,
> >that there is ample opportunity, in the GA, in the public forum, and if
> >possible/OR useful, in the Constituencies, to hear a short summary of the
> >status, and ask questions, related to both the TLDs and the Verisign/NSI
> >contract.  I think that is what is proposed.
> 
> Certainly those at Melbourne should discuss this and ask questions.
> But this should not be a substitute for formal referral to the DNSO
> for consideration as outlined in the bylaws.
> 
> A contract which will bind ICANN to things for 7 - 10 years should not
> be rushed through in a month.

ICANN simply doesn't have the power, authority, or mechanism at its
disposal that you seem to think it does.  Of course it would be nice if
there was lots of time, but it isn't there.

It might be that the proposed agreements are not good for the Internet
Community.  It may be that the best strategy for the ICANN board at this
point is to simply let the contracts expire on May 10, and let the chips
fall where they may -- seems irresponsible on the face of it, but maybe
it is the best course of action.  If you think so, then by all means
send your cogent comments to the Board.  But I don't think that
complaints about process are going to have any effect -- it seems to me
that this is in fact a genuine emergency situation, where the Board is
forced to make a decision under tight time constraints, and I don't
think they like it any better than any one else. 

- -- 
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: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 12:08:28 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

At 19:08 2/03/01 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:

>
>The Board *is* consulting with the DNSO.  The time is compressed.  
>

As it will always be, when real important deals are negotiated under a
deadline that was known in advance. 

David is right. The "fait accompli" atmosphere around the Verisign/NSI
deal, commentators and Wall Streets' reaction and all that is a bit
disturbing.

There is no question that there is angst and anger.
One loose remark about ICANN going to restrict .org again and insufficient
reassurance about rights of existing Domains is sparking  a fury of
hundreds of postings to the ICANN public forum.
http://forum.icann.org/nsi2001/
This has reached the press as well.

 here's a substantive question:  
What guarantee will ICANN give the Individual Registrants in .org that
their existing Domains will not be affected by the change in Registry
management?

- --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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #262
************************