Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #270
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, March 11 2001            Volume 01 : Number 270

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

Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:09:11 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Board descisions

Siegfried and all remaining assembly members,

  The ICANN BoD has been behaving badly almost from the beginning of this
process...

Siegfried Langenbach wrote:

> Mr Chairman, members of the ICANN board,
>
>  these is an open mail expressing my concerns about the way
> ICANN's board is acting.
>
>  as an individual who was and is involved in these process from the
> very beginning I feel to have the right to address all of you.
>
>  It seems to me that, in contrary to the original intention, decisions
> are taken from board, even worse from boards excom only (or from
> staff?), without proper consultation of NC or DNSO and equivalent
> bodies.
>  Yes, you have the power to do so, but you should be aware that
> on the long run you will loose credibility. Are you discussing
> matters to be decided by the board, with those which elected you ?
> Perhaps, but I never heard of that. Instead you are using the very
> old argument of time-pressure to skip proper consensus building.
>
>  Let me give you some examples:
>
> 1.) selection of new TLD's . Without going into details : The way
> how Joe Sims directed the board, by having them voting 3 (three!!!)
> times until the board recognized how Joe wanted them to vote
> (change .web to .info), showed the interested how familiar the
> board was with the matter they were deciding. Consultation could
> have helped.
>
> 2.) Internationalizing of domainnames or multi-lingual-mess. With
> all respect, these is nationalizing not internationalizing : are you
> really convinced that toshiba will use the japanese equivalent as
> domainname internationally? It could have some sence if national
> ccTLD's would do it, but they have too much respect for the
> process to overpass IETF and other. Nobody seems to care about
> the practicably : making money is more important. Should have
> been worked on before starting a so called testbed. Most confusing
> is the fact that ICANN on one side warns on the other side
> supports VeriSign's activities.
>
> last not least
> 3.) Splitting com-net-org registry / registrar. I simply refuse to
> believe that the board is willing to cancel that part of the contract.
> The argument astonishing : One of the main intentions of the whole
> construct was to weaken the power of an monopolist (NSI), now we
> seem to see that it works (does it really?) we try to disrupt that
> process instead to be happy that it works as it was intended to do.
> I might be worng but I could not find that the matter was brought to
> NC and DNSO...
>
>  I recognize that I am only an individual, perhaps with strange ideas
> such as that I would prefer the slower and not so easy democratic
> way instead of the more efficient board-alone decisions, but
> remember an head without an body is not really what you want.
>
>  Elected members should be responsible to those which elected
> them, but not only at election time.
>
> Siegfried Langenbach
> joker.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

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: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:45:26 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Italy

Could our Italian friends tell us if the decision of their President to 
call new elections was soon enough to block their Internet law project. We 
are quite concerned: Italy has explained their project in Brussels and we 
fear that some European Directive might take example on them. With 
obviously an impact on the global Internet further on.

A very interesting discussion on the ccTLD list seems to show that - if we 
still do not know what a DN may legally be - the registration of a DN is 
mostly understood as a pure service by the registrar/registry tandem, only 
consisting in entering DN holders information into the DNS system. If I am 
sight, on most contract forms DNS is described as a changing envirenment 
and its owner is not described. This is not the way some countries want to 
see it: this may create a real confusion. The intended letter of Mike 
Roberts to Govs (seemingly under the pressure of a very limited number of 
countries) has helped others to look more directly into the Internet 
matters. The Chinese and Italian experiences show that the GAC is a real 
dream: Govs know about governing, not about advizing.

Jefsey

- --
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, 10 Mar 2001 16:10:44 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New contracts

Hello Erica,

Erica Roberts wrote on 09.03.01, 13:57:40:
> Following discussion today, it is clear that concern about the proposed
> Verising/Icann contract extends well beyond the Registrars Constituency.  I
> understand concerns were expressed by Gov representatives on the GAC and
> that the GA list is similarly concerned.  This is one issue where there
> appear to be a fair liklihood of achieving consensus supporting the 1999
> agreement!

could you give us more details from the Registrars Constituency
perspective? I saw this from Reuters:

  Registrars attack new ICANN VeriSign plan
  MELBOURNE, March 10 (Reuters) - A group of registrars have banded
  together to oppose a plan for Verisign Inc. to surrender control
  of the ".net" and ".org" suffixes in exchange for keeping long
  term rights to manage the valuable ".com" domain name space.

  Registrars, including Register.com Inc, Melbourne IT Ltd and
  BulkRegister.com, said in the draft of a letter to ICANN the
  proposal failed to provide tangible benefit to the Internet community
  in return for several windfalls for Verisign.

  "We believe that if approved as currently drafted, the agreements
  will significantly undermine the competition that has only begun
  to emerge in the registrar and registry industries," said the
  draft letter.

  "In effect, these proposed modifications will make a contract that
  was already bad for the industry even worse," it said.
  [...] - from http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/010310/sd95680_2.html

So are the registrars calling for a preliminary extension,
and what concessions do they want from VeriSign? (It is a
bit of a pity that the registrars don't have their own
constituency home page...) 

Best regards,
/// Alexander
_______________________________________________________
  ICANN Channel              http://www.icannchannel.de
- --
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, 11 Mar 2001 08:33:53 +1100
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: REMINDER: ICANN-Melbourne Webcast Meetings About to Begin

FYI

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 8:30 AM
To: ICANN-Melbourne Preregistrants for Remote Participation
Subject: REMINDER: ICANN-Melbourne Webcast Meetings About to Begin

Just a quick reminder that today's meeting of the DNSO General Assembly is
about to begin.

(It started at 8:30AM local time -- which is 4:30PM [the day before] US
Eastern time, 9:30PM [the day before] UTC.  The Names Council meeting begins
approximately five hours later -- 1:30PM local, 9:30PM US Eastern, 2:30AM
UTC.)

Join the webcast via <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne>.  Full
archives will be posted at the conclusion of the meeting.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School

- --
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, 09 Mar 2001 18:04:04 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Dnso.org down?

I've been unable to access the DNSO web site for the last day. Does anyone
know what the problem is?

    -- Bret

- --
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, 11 Mar 2001 01:47:50 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Dnso.org down?

On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, at 18:04 [=GMT-0800], Bret Fausett wrote:

> I've been unable to access the DNSO web site for the last day. Does anyone
> know what the problem is?

No problem here to access http://www.dnso.org/

- -- 
[email-masked]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
 http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.ORG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

> 
>     -- Bret
> 
> --
> 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, 08 Mar 2001 13:11:08 -0500
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Dear Mr. Langenbach,

Thank you for taking time to let us know your views in these matters.

Please see a few comments below.

Vint Cerf

At 06:23 PM 3/8/2001 +0100, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:
>Mr Chairman, members of the ICANN board,
>
> these is an open mail expressing my concerns about the way 
>ICANN's board is acting. 
>
> as an individual who was and is involved in these process from the 
>very beginning I feel to have the right to address all of you. 
>
> It seems to me that, in contrary to the original intention, decisions 
>are taken from board, even worse from boards excom only (or from 
>staff?), without proper consultation of NC or DNSO and equivalent 
>bodies.
> Yes, you have the power to do so, but you should be aware that 
>on the long run you will loose credibility. Are you discussing 
>matters to be decided by the board, with those which elected you ? 
>Perhaps, but I never heard of that. Instead you are using the very 
>old argument of time-pressure to skip proper consensus building.
>
> Let me give you some examples:
>
>1.) selection of new TLD's . Without going into details : The way 
>how Joe Sims directed the board, by having them voting 3 (three!!!) 
>times until the board recognized how Joe wanted them to vote 
>(change .web to .info), showed the interested how familiar the 
>board was with the matter they were deciding. Consultation could 
>have helped.

The Board is entitled to counsel from its outside counsel
and from its general counsel and others. Ultimately the decision
was the Board's and not Joe Sims'.

>2.) Internationalizing of domainnames or multi-lingual-mess. With 
>all respect, these is nationalizing not internationalizing : are you 
>really convinced that toshiba will use the japanese equivalent as 
>domainname internationally? It could have some sence if national 
>ccTLD's would do it, but they have too much respect for the 
>process to overpass IETF and other. Nobody seems to care about 
>the practicably : making money is more important. Should have 
>been worked on before starting a so called testbed. Most confusing 
>is the fact that ICANN on one side warns on the other side 
>supports VeriSign's activities.

Here I strongly disagree - I have been on record repeatedly 
expressing concern about many of the efforts to explore internationalizing
of domain names - the technical problems are quite serious and so are
the various jurisdictional questions. ICANN, however, may not have
the ability to prevent experiments from happening. In some sense, anything
that is technically possible on the Internet is likely to become the
subject of experimentation - ranging from multi-lingual TLD efforts to
alternate roots and many things in between (including things like
telephony, video casting and so on). There is risk taken by anyone who
participates in an experiment or a testbed that is not specifically
sanctioned - ICANN can raise issues to assure public awareness of risk
but it may have no ability to prevent these experiments from occuring.

>last not least
>3.) Splitting com-net-org registry / registrar. I simply refuse to 
>believe that the board is willing to cancel that part of the contract.
>The argument astonishing : One of the main intentions of the whole 
>construct was to weaken the power of an monopolist (NSI), now we 
>seem to see that it works (does it really?) we try to disrupt that 
>process instead to be happy that it works as it was intended to do.
>I might be worng but I could not find that the matter was brought to 
>NC and DNSO...

Nothing has been decided here at all - there is a proposal on the
table and the Board has yet to discuss it - though it will do so
during the Australian Board meeting this week. I don't believe any
decision will be made during this board meeting but because of
the various timing elements in the equation, the Board may have
to make a decision by the end of March or the opportunity may be
lost. 

NSI's dominant position as registrar appears to have eroded
considerably in the last 12 months, according to statistics
that I have seen - perhaps you have different views on that point?

> I recognize that I am only an individual, perhaps with strange ideas 
>such as that I would prefer the slower and not so easy democratic 
>way instead of the more efficient board-alone decisions, but 
>remember an head without an body is not really what you want.

I think we want ample and public board discussion on these matters -
ultimately the board must make policy choices and it is a fine balance
between endless debate among many parties - losing opportunities for
lack of closure, and inadequate discussion. I hope we are able to find
that balance to the satisfaction of most observers - we will never
satisfy everyone, I think.

Vint

> Elected members should be responsible to those which elected 
>them, but not only at election time.
>
>
>Siegfried Langenbach
>joker.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: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 12:21:56 -0500
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Board descisions

the success here had nothing to do with divestiture but rather to do with
opening of competition; competition would continue and would even be
enhanced in the new proposal as .org would be spun off, .net would be
spun off, and .com would remain. Since the erosion of market share
was not a consequence of spinning off the registrar but of allowing
other registrars to register in .com, .net and .org, there does not
seem to be much value in spinning off the registrar.

vint

At 09:34 PM 3/8/2001 +0100, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:
>about the stats ? not really ( I was a statistician half my life and 
>know that can only trust on my on stats :-))
>so the question is : why cancel the rules which had the success 
>they were made for ? because of the success ?

- --
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 18:37:31 -0500
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] April 10 Names Council teleconf and the Verisign policy change

In a series of exchanges between myself, Sims, and Touton, some of the parameters of the decision regarding the amendment of the Verisign contract and a new policy for ORG were clarified.

I summarize them below. You can see the originals at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/mail16.html

Touton was forced to concede that any change in the registration policy applied to ORG domains was indeed a substantial policy change and would have to go through the DNSO. 

Also, the idea that the Board will act on April 1 was revealed to be nothing more than "advice" that was given to the Board by Sims. The Board can wait for a formal NC vote, which could take place at its April 10 teleconference. That would give the constituencies enough time to consult and prepare informed positions and amendments to the plan.

I am transmitting a formal request to ICANN's Board NOT to decide on this question until the Names Council can discuss and vote on it at its April 10 meeting. This really doesn't matter what policy position one holds on the proposed agreement. What is at stake here is the legitimacy and integrity of ICANN's processes.

Also, Sims was unable to dispute that important features of the proposed contract involved changes in policy. Specifically, he was unable to demonstrate when and where a policy of allowing Verisign/NSI to retain ownership of both the registry and registrar, which goes against the White Paper "Statement of Policy" and the earlier NSI agreements, and of extending its contract term for com, had already acquired consensus.

- --
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, 10 Mar 2001 20:35:24 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Dnso.org down?

Bret and all remaining assembly members,

  It comes up fine for me....

Bret Fausett wrote:

> I've been unable to access the DNSO web site for the last day. Does anyone
> know what the problem is?
>
>     -- Bret
>
> --
> 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

- --
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: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 20:34:02 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Vint and all remaining assembly members,

  ALthough I would agree with you assessment here Vint, it would seem
that the lack to tackle the adding of new TLD's before this point has
now impacted the .COM world rather significantly as Wall Street has
more than adequately shown.  We [INEGroup] warned early on
that this was of great importance and the process was improperly
sequenced.

vint cerf wrote:

> the success here had nothing to do with divestiture but rather to do with
> opening of competition; competition would continue and would even be
> enhanced in the new proposal as .org would be spun off, .net would be
> spun off, and .com would remain. Since the erosion of market share
> was not a consequence of spinning off the registrar but of allowing
> other registrars to register in .com, .net and .org, there does not
> seem to be much value in spinning off the registrar.
>
> vint
>
> At 09:34 PM 3/8/2001 +0100, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:
> >about the stats ? not really ( I was a statistician half my life and
> >know that can only trust on my on stats :-))
> >so the question is : why cancel the rules which had the success
> >they were made for ? because of the success ?
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 05:13:28 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, at 13:11 [=GMT-0500], vint cerf wrote:
> At 06:23 PM 3/8/2001 +0100, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:

> > these is an open mail expressing my concerns about the way 
> >ICANN's board is acting. 
> >
> > as an individual who was and is involved in these process from the 
> >very beginning I feel to have the right to address all of you. 
> >
> > It seems to me that, in contrary to the original intention, decisions 
> >are taken from board, even worse from boards excom only (or from 
> >staff?), without proper consultation of NC or DNSO and equivalent 
> >bodies.
> > Yes, you have the power to do so, but you should be aware that 
> >on the long run you will loose credibility. Are you discussing 
> >matters to be decided by the board, with those which elected you ? 
> >Perhaps, but I never heard of that. Instead you are using the very 
> >old argument of time-pressure to skip proper consensus building.
> >
> > Let me give you some examples:
> >
> >1.) selection of new TLD's . Without going into details : The way 
> >how Joe Sims directed the board, by having them voting 3 (three!!!) 
> >times until the board recognized how Joe wanted them to vote 
> >(change .web to .info), showed the interested how familiar the 
> >board was with the matter they were deciding. Consultation could 
> >have helped.
> 
> The Board is entitled to counsel from its outside counsel
> and from its general counsel and others. Ultimately the decision
> was the Board's and not Joe Sims'.

Ultimately the point was that the DNSO was not consulted about the
selection of new TLDs.

> >2.) Internationalizing of domainnames or multi-lingual-mess. With 
> >all respect, these is nationalizing not internationalizing : are you 
> >really convinced that toshiba will use the japanese equivalent as 
> >domainname internationally? It could have some sence if national 
> >ccTLD's would do it, but they have too much respect for the 
> >process to overpass IETF and other. Nobody seems to care about 
> >the practicably : making money is more important. Should have 
> >been worked on before starting a so called testbed. Most confusing 
> >is the fact that ICANN on one side warns on the other side 
> >supports VeriSign's activities.
> 
> Here I strongly disagree - I have been on record repeatedly 
> expressing concern about many of the efforts to explore internationalizing
> of domain names - the technical problems are quite serious and so are
> the various jurisdictional questions. ICANN, however, may not have
> the ability to prevent experiments from happening. In some sense, anything
> that is technically possible on the Internet is likely to become the
> subject of experimentation - ranging from multi-lingual TLD efforts to
> alternate roots and many things in between (including things like
> telephony, video casting and so on). There is risk taken by anyone who
> participates in an experiment or a testbed that is not specifically
> sanctioned - ICANN can raise issues to assure public awareness of risk
> but it may have no ability to prevent these experiments from occuring.

The point is, that ICANN is allowing Verisign to make money on the
testbed. Will ICANN allow Verisign to make more money on .COM?

> >last not least
> >3.) Splitting com-net-org registry / registrar. I simply refuse to 
> >believe that the board is willing to cancel that part of the contract.
> >The argument astonishing : One of the main intentions of the whole 
> >construct was to weaken the power of an monopolist (NSI), now we 
> >seem to see that it works (does it really?) we try to disrupt that 
> >process instead to be happy that it works as it was intended to do.
> >I might be worng but I could not find that the matter was brought to 
> >NC and DNSO...
> 
> Nothing has been decided here at all - there is a proposal on the
> table and the Board has yet to discuss it - though it will do so
> during the Australian Board meeting this week. I don't believe any
> decision will be made during this board meeting but because of
> the various timing elements in the equation, the Board may have
> to make a decision by the end of March or the opportunity may be
> lost. 
> 
> NSI's dominant position as registrar appears to have eroded
> considerably in the last 12 months, according to statistics
> that I have seen - perhaps you have different views on that point?

Not addressing the point: no consultation of the DNSO. There are
rumours that this deal with Verisign is under discussion for a long
time. If this is true the hurry is no excuse at all. Even if not,
the DNSO should be consulted about such a far reaching matter as the
chnage of the ORG 'charter'.

> > I recognize that I am only an individual, perhaps with strange ideas 
> >such as that I would prefer the slower and not so easy democratic 
> >way instead of the more efficient board-alone decisions, but 
> >remember an head without an body is not really what you want.
> 
> I think we want ample and public board discussion on these matters -
> ultimately the board must make policy choices and it is a fine balance
> between endless debate among many parties - losing opportunities for
> lack of closure, and inadequate discussion. I hope we are able to find
> that balance to the satisfaction of most observers - we will never
> satisfy everyone, I think.

*We* want ample *DNSO* discussion...

- -- 
[email-masked]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
 http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.ORG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
> 
> Vint
> 
> 
> > Elected members should be responsible to those which elected 
> >them, but not only at election time.
> >
> >
> >Siegfried Langenbach
> >joker.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: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:24:44 +1300
From: J J Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] the GA as a constituency

Melbourne.

This morning one of the proposals suggested by the WG-review to address the
problem of the not-realy-representative DNSO, was brought to the attention
of the GA and the Names Council.

It was the proposal to turn the GA into a constituency, with 3 elected
representatives on the names council.

This is of course a typical compromise position, but one that could find a
welcome reception on the NC

It was interesting that in the afternoon NC meeting, Marc Schneiders, of the
iSP constituency picked up this idea as one worth considering implementing.
It was swiftly attacked by Erica Roberts, who would rather see an interim
committee and later an implementation committee to work on guidelines for
the introduction of new constituencies (!).
Vany Martinez, of the non commercial constitency, disagreed with the idea on
principle. The GA is not representative enough to reflect the typical
concerns of Individual Domain Name Holders, she said. There should be a
separate Individuals'constituency.
Ken Stubs agreed with her. He expressed a personal preferenece for an
Individuals'constituency

The proposal was not brought to a vote, presumably for lack of a second.

Joop

- --
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, 11 Mar 2001 00:07:55 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Marc and all remaining assembly members,

  Marc, you comments in concern, have been noted here anyway.  They
do seem to express a consensus amongst a majority of stakeholders
at present.  It seems obvious that the ICANN BoD is not interested
in the DNSO's position, and especially the GA's thoughts on this matter
or any other matters that concern the DNSO, from Vint's comments
here.  As such, it seems tha the ICANN BoD is content to disregard
it's own Bylaws where it suits expediancy for them.  This of course,
is not the first time this has occured.  It is not likely to be the last.

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, at 13:11 [=GMT-0500], vint cerf wrote:
> > At 06:23 PM 3/8/2001 +0100, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:
>
> > > these is an open mail expressing my concerns about the way
> > >ICANN's board is acting.
> > >
> > > as an individual who was and is involved in these process from the
> > >very beginning I feel to have the right to address all of you.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that, in contrary to the original intention, decisions
> > >are taken from board, even worse from boards excom only (or from
> > >staff?), without proper consultation of NC or DNSO and equivalent
> > >bodies.
> > > Yes, you have the power to do so, but you should be aware that
> > >on the long run you will loose credibility. Are you discussing
> > >matters to be decided by the board, with those which elected you ?
> > >Perhaps, but I never heard of that. Instead you are using the very
> > >old argument of time-pressure to skip proper consensus building.
> > >
> > > Let me give you some examples:
> > >
> > >1.) selection of new TLD's . Without going into details : The way
> > >how Joe Sims directed the board, by having them voting 3 (three!!!)
> > >times until the board recognized how Joe wanted them to vote
> > >(change .web to .info), showed the interested how familiar the
> > >board was with the matter they were deciding. Consultation could
> > >have helped.
> >
> > The Board is entitled to counsel from its outside counsel
> > and from its general counsel and others. Ultimately the decision
> > was the Board's and not Joe Sims'.
>
> Ultimately the point was that the DNSO was not consulted about the
> selection of new TLDs.
>
> > >2.) Internationalizing of domainnames or multi-lingual-mess. With
> > >all respect, these is nationalizing not internationalizing : are you
> > >really convinced that toshiba will use the japanese equivalent as
> > >domainname internationally? It could have some sence if national
> > >ccTLD's would do it, but they have too much respect for the
> > >process to overpass IETF and other. Nobody seems to care about
> > >the practicably : making money is more important. Should have
> > >been worked on before starting a so called testbed. Most confusing
> > >is the fact that ICANN on one side warns on the other side
> > >supports VeriSign's activities.
> >
> > Here I strongly disagree - I have been on record repeatedly
> > expressing concern about many of the efforts to explore internationalizing
> > of domain names - the technical problems are quite serious and so are
> > the various jurisdictional questions. ICANN, however, may not have
> > the ability to prevent experiments from happening. In some sense, anything
> > that is technically possible on the Internet is likely to become the
> > subject of experimentation - ranging from multi-lingual TLD efforts to
> > alternate roots and many things in between (including things like
> > telephony, video casting and so on). There is risk taken by anyone who
> > participates in an experiment or a testbed that is not specifically
> > sanctioned - ICANN can raise issues to assure public awareness of risk
> > but it may have no ability to prevent these experiments from occuring.
>
> The point is, that ICANN is allowing Verisign to make money on the
> testbed. Will ICANN allow Verisign to make more money on .COM?
>
> > >last not least
> > >3.) Splitting com-net-org registry / registrar. I simply refuse to
> > >believe that the board is willing to cancel that part of the contract.
> > >The argument astonishing : One of the main intentions of the whole
> > >construct was to weaken the power of an monopolist (NSI), now we
> > >seem to see that it works (does it really?) we try to disrupt that
> > >process instead to be happy that it works as it was intended to do.
> > >I might be worng but I could not find that the matter was brought to
> > >NC and DNSO...
> >
> > Nothing has been decided here at all - there is a proposal on the
> > table and the Board has yet to discuss it - though it will do so
> > during the Australian Board meeting this week. I don't believe any
> > decision will be made during this board meeting but because of
> > the various timing elements in the equation, the Board may have
> > to make a decision by the end of March or the opportunity may be
> > lost.
> >
> > NSI's dominant position as registrar appears to have eroded
> > considerably in the last 12 months, according to statistics
> > that I have seen - perhaps you have different views on that point?
>
> Not addressing the point: no consultation of the DNSO. There are
> rumours that this deal with Verisign is under discussion for a long
> time. If this is true the hurry is no excuse at all. Even if not,
> the DNSO should be consulted about such a far reaching matter as the
> chnage of the ORG 'charter'.
>
> > > I recognize that I am only an individual, perhaps with strange ideas
> > >such as that I would prefer the slower and not so easy democratic
> > >way instead of the more efficient board-alone decisions, but
> > >remember an head without an body is not really what you want.
> >
> > I think we want ample and public board discussion on these matters -
> > ultimately the board must make policy choices and it is a fine balance
> > between endless debate among many parties - losing opportunities for
> > lack of closure, and inadequate discussion. I hope we are able to find
> > that balance to the satisfaction of most observers - we will never
> > satisfy everyone, I think.
>
> *We* want ample *DNSO* discussion...
>
> --
> [email-masked]
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>  http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.ORG
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >
> > Vint
> >
> >
> > > Elected members should be responsible to those which elected
> > >them, but not only at election time.
> > >
> > >
> > >Siegfried Langenbach
> > >joker.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

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: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 01:01:23 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Afraid?

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_027F_01C0A9C6.CA7C33D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

They are afraid to discuss Non-ICANN TLDs - postponing it till next =
meeting. Are they afraid of something??

- ------=_NextPart_000_027F_01C0A9C6.CA7C33D0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3103.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>They are afraid to discuss Non-ICANN =
TLDs -=20
postponing it till next meeting. Are they afraid of =
something??</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_027F_01C0A9C6.CA7C33D0--

- --
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, 11 Mar 2001 19:44:13 +1100
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Melbourne DNSO Meetings Complete, Public Forum Tomorrow

FYI

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 7:42 PM
To: ICANN-Melbourne Remote Participants and Preregistrants to Participate
Remotely
Subject: UPDATE: ICANN-Melbourne DNSO Meetings Complete, Public Forum
Tomorrow

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because you preregistered to attend ICANN's
public meetings in Melbourne, Australia (March 10-13) via webcast.

Today's meetings of the DNSO General Assembly and Names Council are now
complete, and archives of these sessions have been posted in the online
meeting archive at <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive>.
Archives include RealVideo recordings, agendas, scribe's notes, documents
and presentations used, real-time questions received, and online discussion
logs.

Meetings resume tomorrow at 8:45AM local time with the ICANN Public Forum.
To join the webcast, go to <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne>.
During and just before webcasts, a prominent link on this page will allow
you to enter the remote participation area.  Please be sure to join us
online at the proper time, being aware of time zone differences.  For
example, tomorrow's Public Forum begins at 8:45AM local time on March 12 --
which is 4:45PM [March 11, the day before] US Eastern time, 9:45PM [March
11] UTC.

In preparation for the meetings, you may want to review the meeting agenda,
as posted at <http://www.icann.org/melbourne/#agenda>.  From that page,
you'll also find public comment spaces on major agenda items.

If you miss some or all of the Public Forum or if you wish to review content
generated by the Public Forum, be advised that complete archives of the
session will be posted at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive> upon its conclusion.

Access to the remote participation system requires a 28.8kbps or faster
modem, with best access over 56k or faster connections.  Access to the live
audio and video feeds requires the RealPlayer, version 5.0 or later (G2 or
later strongly recommended), available for free from
<http://www.real.com/products/player>.  Access to the live chat and
dynamically-updated scribe's notes areas requires a JAVA-capable browser (IE
or Netscape version 3 or later) or a dedicated IRC client.

Finally, if you're not already subscribed to ICANN's announcements list, you
may find it helpful to join in order to receive important future
announcements from ICANN.  See <http://www.icann.org/announcements> for
instructions.

We look forward to seeing you online during the meetings!

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School

- --
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 #270
************************