Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #267
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, March 6 2001            Volume 01 : Number 267

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

Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 07:44:16 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reasonable Opportunity for Comment

Chuck and all remaining assembly members,

  Uh huh...  Well it seems to me anyway that the hand writing is on the
wall, so to speak....

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" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 19:52:06 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Chair nomination help

Joop Teernstra wrote:

>
>There is a tool that has been prepared with some effort and is waiting for
>you to be used.
>Up to now only 7 GA members have used the web based nomination form at
>www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/
>
>You may wish to look at the result or make your nomination(s) yourself.
>Those who have made nominations on the list may want to repeat them on the
>web, so that all nominations are conveniently tabulated in one place.
>
>The purpose of this exercise is  to make it easier to determine which names
>should be sent to the DNSO secretariat, without clogging this list with
>untimely election politics.

You may want to have a look at the procedure for the elections (and 
nominations thereof) at: 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00637.html

Whatever method people would like to use (nomination on the GA list, 
nomination on a different list [don't laugh, this has happened too!], 
nomination on Joop's web site, whatever else you may think of) please do 
keep in mind that the DNSO Secretariat will take into account *only* 
nominations and endorsments done according to the procedures, by individuals 
regularly registered to the voting registry, within the time frame available 
for the votes.

All the rest may be useful exercise, but not official data.

Best 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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 20:19:01 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

Good evening.

What puzzles me in this discussion is the following.
>
> >> So let's be very clear - NSI after 2007 has to compete against other
> >> entities to remain the registry.  If they can not provide the best
> >> price and/or service they have agreed that they may lose the registry.
> >
> >fat chance.
>
>That is in the agreement.  They can of course argue it in court but if
>for example they have insisted if they have the contract renewed that
>they can charge $8 per name and a competing bid said they can do it
>for $3 a name then ICANN would be on fairly strong ground to go with
>the competitor.

Do we *really* think that the domain names registration business will be 
anything similar to what it is today in 2007?
I bet that nobody by then will try to locate a company by guessing the name, 
so the value attached to the name (and the value of the market thereof) will 
be completely different.

What looks the key point to me is what will happen to .org.
Of course, I don't think that VeriSign will be happy to have a strong 
competitor around, therefore I assume that they will ask that the 
non-for-profit status of .org shall be enforced. This will simply mean that 
the operating cost of a registration in .org will be substancially higher 
than .com, because the registry (or the registrars) have to check the 
qualifications of the subscriber.
This will make sure that .org will not be anywhere near other TLDs like 
.biz, for instance.
Then we have the problem of whoever is already in .org (in good or bad 
faith). Will they be allowed to stay forever, or will they just have a grace 
term to migrate?
What will be the UDRP? Can I build a non-profit with a name that is already 
used by a for-profit, and use some mechanism for hijacking the name on the 
ground that the current owner is not-not-for-profit (or that he/she just 
cannot prove it enough, because of the specific rules for not-for-profit in 
his/her country?

Well, this all shows, IMHO, that to rush a decision is probably not the best 
thing to do. I do expect a lively debate, and a lot of comments, and 
personally I am in favour of providing enough time for it.

On the other subject on whether DNSO is involved or not, besides that 
somebody has already pointed out the letter to NC, I believe that while it 
is true that ICANN can obviously take any decision without waiting for the 
DNSO, I think that from the DNSO's part it would be silly not to say its 
word on it.
We have lost already so many chances to count (see, for instance, the 
lukewarm support of some WG results without even proposing something else) 
that we cannot avod to take a position on this.
Otherwise people will start seriously questioning why at all we need a DNSO 
at all.

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 20:28:28 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can ask substantive questions

I would like to hear more comments on this before putting this item on the 
agenda.
There will be discussion at ICANN open forum. My question is:
- - shall we take GA time for a discussion with very little previous exchange 
on the list, taking therefore the risk of using a lot of time that can be 
dedicated to other items that may be more pressing?

My suggestion is to get first the Chair election out of the way, then the 
DNSO review, and then this, provided we have time.
Please bear also in mind that we may have feedback from the AtLarge forum on 
the 9th, and maybe discussion about it.

Roberto

>From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
>To: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,        
><[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
>Subject: RE: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, 
>we can ask substantive questions
>Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 02:24:50 -0500
>
>
>
>Marilyn Cade:-
>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.
>
>- Seconded
>Joanna Lane
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________________
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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 14:57:30 -0500
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can ask substantive questions

         I agree with Roberto that discussion related to the chair election 
and the DNSO review should be the GA's top priorities for Melbourne.  Given 
the discussion that has taken place on the list already, those are the 
issues on which it will be both possible and useful to generate a GA "sense 
of the room" in advance of the NC meeting and the Board's public 
forum.  There's no time in Melbourne for the GA to do meaningful work on 
the issues raised by the proposed new TLD and Verisign contracts.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[email-masked]

At 08:28 PM 3/6/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>I would like to hear more comments on this before putting this item on the 
>agenda.
>There will be discussion at ICANN open forum. My question is:
>- shall we take GA time for a discussion with very little previous 
>exchange on the list, taking therefore the risk of using a lot of time 
>that can be dedicated to other items that may be more pressing?
>
>My suggestion is to get first the Chair election out of the way, then the 
>DNSO review, and then this, provided we have time.
>Please bear also in mind that we may have feedback from the AtLarge forum 
>on the 9th, and maybe discussion about it.
>
>Roberto
>
>
>
>>From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
>>Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
>>To: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
>><[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
>>Subject: RE: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, 
>>we can ask substantive questions
>>Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 02:24:50 -0500
>>
>>
>>
>>Marilyn Cade:-
>>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.
>>
>>- Seconded
>>Joanna Lane
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>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
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>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: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:11:36 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various  forums, we can ask substantive questions

Hello Jonathan,

Tuesday, March 06, 2001, 11:57:30 AM, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

>          I agree with Roberto that discussion related to the chair election 
> and the DNSO review should be the GA's top priorities for Melbourne.  Given 
> the discussion that has taken place on the list already, those are the 
> issues on which it will be both possible and useful to generate a GA "sense 
> of the room" in advance of the NC meeting and the Board's public 
> forum.  There's no time in Melbourne for the GA to do meaningful work on 
> the issues raised by the proposed new TLD and Verisign contracts.

The GA Chair election really isn't much of a subject of discussion for
a face 2 face meeting, since a nomination and election process is
already underway and has started.

What is there possibly to discuss that would justify taking time away
from other more important issues?

- -- 
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: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 16:20:46 -0500
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various  forums, we can ask substantive questions

At 01:11 PM 3/6/2001 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>Hello Jonathan,
>
>Tuesday, March 06, 2001, 11:57:30 AM, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> >          I agree with Roberto that discussion related to the chair 
> election
> > and the DNSO review should be the GA's top priorities for 
> Melbourne.  Given
> > the discussion that has taken place on the list already, those are the
> > issues on which it will be both possible and useful to generate a GA 
> "sense
> > of the room" in advance of the NC meeting and the Board's public
> > forum.  There's no time in Melbourne for the GA to do meaningful work on
> > the issues raised by the proposed new TLD and Verisign contracts.
>
>The GA Chair election really isn't much of a subject of discussion for
>a face 2 face meeting, since a nomination and election process is
>already underway and has started.
[snip]

         Well . . . it hasn't, actually.  At least so far as the DNSO 
secretariat is concerned, the official nomination period will begin on 
March 16, and the voting on the nominated candidates will begin on March 
31.  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00637.html
But if the GA members meeting in Melbourne find the election procedures 
uncontroversial and can wrap up that agenda item quickly, all the better -- 
there'll be more time left for other matters.

Jon

- --
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: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:15:34 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] New contracts

On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 08:19:01PM +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> What puzzles me in this discussion is the following.
> >
> > >> So let's be very clear - NSI after 2007 has to compete against other
> > >> entities to remain the registry.  If they can not provide the best
> > >> price and/or service they have agreed that they may lose the registry.
> > >
> > >fat chance.
> >
> >That is in the agreement.  They can of course argue it in court but if
> >for example they have insisted if they have the contract renewed that
> >they can charge $8 per name and a competing bid said they can do it
> >for $3 a name then ICANN would be on fairly strong ground to go with
> >the competitor.
> 
> Do we *really* think that the domain names registration business will be 
> anything similar to what it is today in 2007?

Well, yes, I think there will be substantial similarities.  There will 
be many differences as well, but I wouldn't overstate them.

> I bet that nobody by then will try to locate a company by guessing the
> name, so the value attached to the name (and the value of the market
> thereof) will be completely different.

I don't think that guessability is what drives the current market, in 
any case.

> What looks the key point to me is what will happen to .org.
> Of course, I don't think that VeriSign will be happy to have a strong 
> competitor around, therefore I assume that they will ask that the 
> non-for-profit status of .org shall be enforced.

Whatever VSGN may ask, as I read the agreements, they have no legal
leverage whatsoever on that point.  Moreover, any new policies for .org
would necessarily go through a long public process, and we would get
whatever resulted fromt that process, independent of VSGN. 

> This will simply mean that 
> the operating cost of a registration in .org will be substancially higher 
> than .com, because the registry (or the registrars) have to check the 
> qualifications of the subscriber.

Maybe, maybe not.  At this point I think that the discussion of
potential .org policies is a red herring -- we have a year and a half to
talk about it, and there are lots of potentially highly desirable
outcomes to that -- .org could, as a result of a public process, be
completely open.  It could explicitly support individuals.  A 
registration in .com could prevent a registration of the same name by 
the same entitiy in .org.  There are lots of possibilities, and we have 
a long time to discuss it.

Here's the real choice, as I see it:

Old:

    NSI divests the registrar business, and keeps the registries for
    .com/net/org until 2007; in 2007 there will be a rebid, but NSI has
    a tremendous inside track on winning that bid *for all three
    registries* (as I read the contract, it presumes that the three are
    bid as a unit).  To simplify, this choice is that NSI keeps the 
    three registries indefinitely, but can't run a registrar.

New:

    NSI keeps registrar business, with current firewall in place; NSI
    keeps .com registry, and has even better terms for the renewal of
    that registry, but gives up, over time, .org and .net.

The .com registry is a cash cow, and they are not going to give that up,
ever.  The value of the registrar as a source of new registrations is 
dropping -- percipituously, by all accounts -- but there are still a 
huge number of renewals going through that registrar, and moreover, the 
registrar database is a huge marketing tool for them.

> Well, this all shows, IMHO, that to rush a decision is probably not
> the best thing to do.  I do expect a lively debate, and a lot of
> comments, and personally I am in favour of providing enough time for 
> it.  

If the USG, NSI, and ICANN all agree to say a 2 month extension, as has
been suggested, I agree that it would be a good thing.  But I don't
think it can be counted on.  Moreover, a delay is good for NSI, and not
so good for ICANN -- NSI has more time to find a good deal for the 
registrar business, which weakens ICANN's negotiating position.

[...]

> We have lost already so many chances to count (see, for instance, the 
> lukewarm support of some WG results without even proposing something else) 
> that we cannot avod to take a position on this.
> Otherwise people will start seriously questioning why at all we need a DNSO 
> at all.

On the contrary.  I think this discussion is exremely valuable to the 
directors, some of whom are indeed following it very closely.

At this point it seems to me that the substance of the decision 
revolves around two points:  1) the issue of registrar-registry 
separation, and 2) two different competition models:

    a) competition between TLDs.  In this model TLDs are heavily 
    marketed by the registries/registry operators, and in this model, 
    it makes sense to give the registry operators long term contracts, 
    because they are then motivated to invest the money in the 
    marketing -- with a short term contract, there is no incentive to 
    invest in a market that is going to be taken away from you in a 
    rebid. 

    b) competition between registry operators as service providers.  If
    you presume that TLD competition doesn't work, because of customer
    lockin and other effects, then the preffered model is one of
    frequent rebids of registry contracts, and competition among the
    various companies running registries.

These are old questions, and we have been debating them for literally 
years.  Personally, in an ideal world, I strongly prefer both a total 
separation of registrar/registry and competition model (b).  But NSI's 
totally dominant position in the market seriously distorts things -- it 
is going to be very hard for any competitor to put a dent in their 
position, and without a strong marketing push I don't expect .biz or 
.info or any of the others (or even .web if it had been approved) to 
have a significant impact on the dominant position of .com.  So 
marketing, unfortunately, is very important if we ever want to get real 
competition going.  

Both the status quo and the proposed changed agreements are 
disgustingly sweet deals for NSI.  I have resigned myself to that -- 
they were given a gigantic gift by the USG, and they have milked it for 
all it is worth, and now they are in a very strong position.  But we 
have to make decisions based on reality, not fantasy.

Kent

- -- 
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: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:30:20 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various   forums, we can ask substantive questions

Hello Jonathan,

Tuesday, March 06, 2001, 1:20:46 PM, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

> At 01:11 PM 3/6/2001 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>>Hello Jonathan,
>>
>>Tuesday, March 06, 2001, 11:57:30 AM, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>> >          I agree with Roberto that discussion related to the chair 
>> election
>> > and the DNSO review should be the GA's top priorities for 
>> Melbourne.  Given
>> > the discussion that has taken place on the list already, those are the
>> > issues on which it will be both possible and useful to generate a GA 
>> "sense
>> > of the room" in advance of the NC meeting and the Board's public
>> > forum.  There's no time in Melbourne for the GA to do meaningful work on
>> > the issues raised by the proposed new TLD and Verisign contracts.
>>
>>The GA Chair election really isn't much of a subject of discussion for
>>a face 2 face meeting, since a nomination and election process is
>>already underway and has started.
> [snip]

>          Well . . . it hasn't, actually.  At least so far as the DNSO 
> secretariat is concerned, the official nomination period will begin on 
> March 16, and the voting on the nominated candidates will begin on March 
> 31.  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00637.html
> But if the GA members meeting in Melbourne find the election procedures 
> uncontroversial and can wrap up that agenda item quickly, all the better -- 
> there'll be more time left for other matters.

Shouldn't the GA members who find the election procedures
controversial in any way post a message to the GA then?

I am concerned that items are being placed on the agenda to deal with
at the F2F without any prior discussion on the list of the same
issues.  The F2F should be used to cement or work out differences
regarding issues that have been vetted here, and if any concerns about
the election process exist, they have not been put forward here.

- -- 
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: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 22:32:57 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO role in DNS policy

Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:17:05PM +0000, [email-masked] wrote:
> > 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).
>

I'll buy that, the board can act regardless clauses etc...
I think it would be interesting to check the audience on whether it would be 
good to do so.

I'm not arguing with either part, I'm just trying to move from the legalese 
to the pragmatic, and ask whether a feedback from the DNSO community would 
be a *good thing*.
Then, of course, the board will decide. But I would not pass on the chance 
to give the opinion.

Whatever that may be.

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 22:23:46 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

Dear Roberto,
Experience : France Telecom wanted Minitel to be quoted in the article of 
incorporation to allocate a Minitel name. Nobody wanted to change the 
articles of their corporation. In France a non profit is easy to register, 
cheap ($35), can do what they want, tax exempted and can stay for ever.

On 20:19 06/03/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
>Can I build a non-profit with a name that is already used by a for-profit, 
>and use some mechanism for hijacking the name on the ground that the 
>current owner is not-not-for-profit (or that he/she just cannot prove it 
>enough, because of the specific rules for not-for-profit in his/her country?

So most of the Minitel business services were registeed by a non profit 
association between the company and some executives with its business 
management delegated to the company, revenues included. Makes the DN $35 
more expensive. Still less expensive than the $100 of a few years ago... 
anyway it is for non profit: it is logic it would be more costly....

Jefsey
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you know the difference between iCANN and GOD?
- - iCANN believe their are God
- - God has not yet been selected as an iCANN squatter.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- --
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: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 23:00:53 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Chair-NOMINATION-Charles Sha'ban

Joop Teernstra wrote:
>...........
>The only way to get enough candidates to make an election meaningful is to
>have a large number of seconded nominations.
>This is why I proposed to support Joanna's motion to the WG-review, and use
>a big list on the Polling Booth as a starting point to narrow down a slate
>of nominees.  We can see later who will accept.

I don't understand what's wrong with having the nominations officially 
tracked, according to procedure, by DNSO Secreatariat, and what is the added 
value of the intermediation of an additional tool.
But anyway, if you want to run "primaries", why not?

>
>Deliberate discrediting efforts towards the Booth have only served to slow
>the nomination process down and make the election of a Chair who could take
>his/her seat in Melbourne  impossible.

IMHO, that was impossible anyhow.

>
>Roberto, are you keeping track of all the nominations?

No, but the DNSO Secretariat will definitively keep track of all the 
nominations done according to the procedures.
No point in keeping track of what has been done so far: most of the nominees 
I've seen were people that were not even aware that they have been nominated 
;>).

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 23:02:20 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Chair-NOMINATION-Charles Sha'ban

Joop Teernstra wrote:
>...........
>The only way to get enough candidates to make an election meaningful is to
>have a large number of seconded nominations.
>This is why I proposed to support Joanna's motion to the WG-review, and use
>a big list on the Polling Booth as a starting point to narrow down a slate
>of nominees.  We can see later who will accept.

I don't understand what's wrong with having the nominations officially 
tracked, according to procedure, by DNSO Secreatariat, and what is the added 
value of the intermediation of an additional tool.
But anyway, if you want to run "primaries", why not?

>
>Deliberate discrediting efforts towards the Booth have only served to slow
>the nomination process down and make the election of a Chair who could take
>his/her seat in Melbourne  impossible.

IMHO, that was impossible anyhow.

>
>Roberto, are you keeping track of all the nominations?

No, but the DNSO Secretariat will definitively keep track of all the 
nominations done according to the procedures.
No point in keeping track of what has been done so far: most of the nominees 
I've seen were people that were not even aware that they have been nominated 
;>).

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 23:24:34 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] GA Chair

William X. Walsh wrote:
>Wednesday, February 28, 2001, 5:42:33 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> >> A question: Does the DNSO pay for the GA's Chair to go to the ICANN
> > meetings?
> >> Or does the Chair have to come up with it out of their own funds?
>
> >>On their own.

Confirm, in the sense that there is no provision (for the time being) from 
NC funds to sponsor the GA Chair.
This was discussed by NC during the 2000 budget (about one year ago) and 
rejected. I did not intervene in the discussion, because I was already GA 
Chair at that time, and would have been suspected to be taking care of my 
own interests rather than the GA.
Now that I am at the end of the mandate, and that I have not received one 
single penny from the DNSO, neither for trips, nor for the phone calls, nor 
for the time spent, let me tell you that it is of the paramount importance 
that the DNSO defines some kind of mechanism by which we can make sure that 
the next GA Chair will be a normal person and not either a masochist or 
somebody with a hidden agenda (and hidden sponsors thereof).

To this subject, I would like to add that, before final voting on the GA 
Chair candidates, full disclosure on potential conflict of interest would be 
appreciated as part of the statement of acceptance.

>
> > This is an important point. Would the personal financial means available 
>to
> > a candidate impact the quality  of their service to the organization.
> > Obviously the answer is yes until we reach the point where online
> > participation at meetings is on a level playing field with attendees.
> > therefore would say that independent financial support for the GA Chair
> > could be one of the recommendations from this WG under that topic. Could 
>the
> > NC advise us whether the business plan to be presented at Melbourne
> > addresses this aspect?
> > Joanna
>
>Even if online participation ever reaches any kind of parity with
>physical attendance, the GA Chair should be physically present at the
>ICANN meetings.

Unfortunately yes.
I don't see how a meeting that has a physical session can be chaired from 
remote.

>
>I agree that there should be funding for the GA Chair's attendance,
>but I wouldn't count on it coming from the NC or ICANN.

I wonder why ;>)
Anyway, the politically correct answer is that the GA shall take care of the 
GA and its instances. A lot of people see us like a crowd that just sends 
e-mails (of dubious importance) around, but that will not take a real 
commitment. Financial engagement (not necessarily direct: I have seen a 
couple of posts about finding "sponsors", for instance) is an element that 
can change our image.

>
>However, I think it would be somewhat trivial to setup a means for
>members of the GA to donate money to help sponsor the Chair's
>expenses for those trips and other incidental expenses related to the
>position.  The GA should take this up itself, rather than seeking
>something from the NC on it, if anything just to show that it can act
>as an independent body within the DNSO structure.
>

Agree, see above.
But I insist on other creative means beyond canvassing members (that will 
cost a lot just in collecting the money).

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 23:42:20 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Qualifications for GA Chair?

Jefsey Morfin asked:
>On 17:23 28/02/01, Jeff Williams said:
>>  What are the proper qualifications for the GA Chair nominations?
>>Where are they posted, if they exist?
>
>I doubt they are as such. May be Roberto could enlight us on this?

You're right, there aren't any (formal) qualifications.
It was done this way so that I could pass the test ;>)

People may though have their ideal profile of GA Chair.
I think that independence from the constituencies may be a proper thing to 
ask. That means almost automatically independence from the NC.

Maybe good to make sure that we have somebody that will present to the NC 
the GA's position, but open to dialogue, rather than considering open fight 
the only option. But I am speaking as individual, not as Chair.

>
>>Who, and under what conditions are proper qualifications developed?
>>What is the criterion for a good GA Chair?
>
>Technically, the Chair of an assembly which should elect 47% of the BoD is
>a key person.  IMHO the real question is: do we want a Chair to manage the
>GA list so it may grow itself into a new vision, or do we want a  leader to
>impose on the BoD a new vision of the GA?
>
>May be the candidates could tell us their own positions?
>Jefsey
>

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #267
************************