Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #271
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, March 11 2001            Volume 01 : Number 271

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

Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 09:57:43 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Vint,
Thanks for the clarification below, but it seems to me that the new contract 
with Verisign, if ratified by the Board, will be a major change in policy.
The idea of renouncing to the principle of separation Registrar/Registry, 
even if it may justified by the new conditions (which I personally do not 
believe, but that's a personal opinion), should be discussed by the DNSO.
The issue came up today in both the GA and the Name Council.

Going back just to the previous ICANN meeting, I remember you making the 
remark, a propos the IOD application for .web, that it was an "old way" to 
conceive the management of a TLD, with no separation between Registry and 
Registrar.
What has changed in few months, and why the DNSO has not participated to the 
cahnge in polcy?

I join the many people that today were asking for the DNSO to be involve, 
and I will bring this message tomorrow to the Open Forum.
I would appreciate other statements on the list on this subject.

Thanks
Roberto

>
> >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.
>

_________________________________________________________________________
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: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 10:00:06 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Dnso.org down?

Good evening from down under.

Elisabeth has reminded me that AFNIC has changed servers over the weekend. 
It has been down for few hours, is OK now.

Rewgards
Roberto

>From: [email-masked]
>To: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
>CC: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] Dnso.org down?
>Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 01:47:50 +0100 (CET)
>
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________________
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: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 20:17:21 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Melbourne DNSO Meetings Complete, Public Forum Tomorrow

The stream for the morning session is nearly impossible to follow as there
is an underlying hiss and distortion that I personally have been unable to
remove.

If anyone has a good recording of the session, particularly from 2:01 to
2:20, I would appreciate having access to it.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|> Ben Edelman
|> Sent: Sunday, 11 March 2001 7:44 PM
|> To: [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

- --
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 05:05:24 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Melbourne DNSO Meetings Complete, Public Forum Tomorrow

FYI the RealVideo recordings are largely unintelligible.

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ben
Edelman
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 3:44 AM
To: [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

- --
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 12:57:24 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] the GA as a constituency

J J Teernstra wrote on 11.03.01, 06:24:44:
> in the afternoon NC meeting, Marc Schneiders, of the
> iSP constituency picked up this idea as one worth considering
> implementing.

Just to prevent confusion: *Michael* Schneider
is the ISP/CP spokesperson, *Marc* Schneiders is the
ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.ORG
spokesperson. :)

/// Alexander

- --
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 13:33:40 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Afraid?

At 01:01 11/03/2001 -0600, John Palmer wrote:
>They are afraid to discuss Non-ICANN TLDs - postponing it till next 
>meeting. Are they afraid of something??
>

why should ICANN discuss non-ICANN TLDs?
They are, by definition, none of ICANN's business.

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

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

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

Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:36:44 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Spinoff important? (Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions)

At 12:21 09/03/2001 -0500, 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.

Another interpretation is that the *threat* of being forced to spin off the 
registrar allowed competition for registrar services to happen.
If this interpretation is correct, the threat has to remain active somehow 
in order to ensure fair treatment of all registrars.

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

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

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

Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 16:33:10 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Afraid?

On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, at 13:33 [=GMT+0100], Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> At 01:01 11/03/2001 -0600, John Palmer wrote:
> >They are afraid to discuss Non-ICANN TLDs - postponing it till next 
> >meeting. Are they afraid of something??
> >
> 
> why should ICANN discuss non-ICANN TLDs?
> They are, by definition, none of ICANN's business.

They aren't? Not even when they threaten "the stability of the
internet"? Or ICANN itself? Or when they give rise to valid questions
to ICANN about its way of dealing with new TLDs?

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

- --
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 17:38:34 +0100
From: "Siegfried Langenbach" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Dear Sir,

 I am not completely convinced of your argument even recognizing 
the value, because I learned that things in life tend to be more 
complicated, lets say have more than one simple dimension.

 But if I agree on your interpretation I must ask me and you why 
ICANN staff introduced exactly that argument ( reduction of 
marketshare of VeriSign ) to justify the change of the contract ?
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-
topic.htm
snip-------------
B. CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES SINCE THE ORIGINAL 
AGREEMENT
...
Perhaps most relevantly, VeriSign's once-dominant market position 
has been severely eroded. VeriSign's share of total registrations has 
fallen to about 50%,
    its share of new registrations to under 40%, and its share of net 
new registrations (taking into account non-renewals and transfers) 
to an even lower level. This
    trend appears to be continuing in 2001.
...
snap-----------
 It seems not logical for me to allow the argument only from one 
point of view.

siegfried

On 9 Mar 01, at 12:21, 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
> 
> 

- --
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 10:49:25 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Spinoff important? (Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions)

Harald and all remaining assembly members,

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> At 12:21 09/03/2001 -0500, 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.
>
> Another interpretation is that the *threat* of being forced to spin off the
> registrar allowed competition for registrar services to happen.
> If this interpretation is correct, the threat has to remain active somehow
> in order to ensure fair treatment of all registrars.

  Seems to me that what is important is the fair treatment of the REGISTRANTS,
not the registrars.  This is something that the ICANN BoD needs to concentrate
on rather than the Registrar side of the equation.

>
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
> +47 41 44 29 94
> Personal email: [email-masked]
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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 10:54:20 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Afraid?

Harald and all remaining assembly members,

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> At 01:01 11/03/2001 -0600, John Palmer wrote:
> >They are afraid to discuss Non-ICANN TLDs - postponing it till next
> >meeting. Are they afraid of something??
> >
>
> why should ICANN discuss non-ICANN TLDs?

  Very simple answer.  Because Domain Names are being
registered in those TLD's and those TLD's are now part of the
DNS.

>
> They are, by definition, none of ICANN's business.

 In as much as ICANN doesn't control those TLD's, you are
correct here.  However this doesn't preclude the fact that they
are now part of the DNS.

>
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
> +47 41 44 29 94
> Personal email: [email-masked]
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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 10:58:35 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Melbourne DNSO Meetings Complete, Public Forum Tomorrow

Joanna and all remaining assembly members,

  Yes.  Some of our members have also indicated the same.  However
this is not surprising, as this is a situation/condition that has plagued
remote participation almost each and every time.

Joanna Lane wrote:

> FYI the RealVideo recordings are largely unintelligible.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ben
> Edelman
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 3:44 AM
> To: [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
>
> --
> 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 14:00:31 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Afraid?

> At 01:01 11/03/2001 -0600, John Palmer wrote:
> >They are afraid to discuss Non-ICANN TLDs - postponing it till next
> >meeting. Are they afraid of something??
> >
> 
> why should ICANN discuss non-ICANN TLDs?
> They are, by definition, none of ICANN's business.

That's a rather dangerous statement.  While the operational 
aspects of non-ICANN TLDs are none of ICANN's business, the 
simple fact that they exist ARE very pertinent to ICANN's business.   

They have an agreement with the US Government that says two 
important things:  

they shall not harm existing entities (paraphrase) and they are to
work to maintain the stability of the Internet.  

By ignoring non-ICANN TLDs, they are breaking both those clauses 
in their agreement.  They are harming many entities and groups of 
entities by setting the precedent of taking TLDs and they have now 
set the precedent for promoting collisions in the name space - 
encouraging others to do the same (gleefully).   

If they continue with the attitude that they are responsible for their
root only with total disregard for anything or anyone outside their
framework, they invite disaster.  

This is NOT just business and competition.  It is a responsibility that 
ICANN has ignored and that we must not ignore.  The TLDs outside 
the ICANN framework are working diligently to avoid precisely what 
ICANN has now promoted.  Newcomers to the TLD operating 
business are not going to go away.  Instead they must be educated 
and encourged to do what is necessary to maintain stability and to 
put users first.  We are working to that end.  ICANN prefers to "do 
its own thing" and ignore the existence of anything else.  Just look 
where that has gotten us.  

ICANN was supposed to set an example for what is right and proper 
for the net.  Instead they have trashed it and show no indication 
they are willing to right it.   

Leah  

> 
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
> +47 41 44 29 94
> Personal email: [email-masked]
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:21:17 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Spinoff important? (Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions)

> Jeff, as opposed to each other I agree, but the fair treatment of all
> really should be the objective. Sincerely,
> 
> > Another interpretation is that the *threat* of being forced to spin
> > off the registrar allowed competition for registrar services to
> > happen. If this interpretation is correct, the threat has to remain
> > active somehow in order to ensure fair treatment of all registrars.
> 
>   Seems to me that what is important is the fair treatment of the
>   REGISTRANTS,
> not the registrars.  This is something that the ICANN BoD needs to
> concentrate on rather than the Registrar side of the equation.

Precisely!  If not for the users and registrants, registrars would 
have no reason to exist.  Further, if ICANN insists that others do 
not exist because they are not within their own framework, they are 
hurting both users and registrants.  I'm relieved to see someone 
recognizes who the important parties are.  It is NOT the registrars 
OR the registries OR the IP interests.  It is the USERS.

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:29:54 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Spinoff important? (Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions)

Eric and all remaining assembly members,

  The ICANN BoD has thus far been playing the political game of
the Registrant vs the Registrar as well as playing off one set of preferred
registrars against NSI/Verisign.  As such, the emphasis it seems to me would
be to be with the Registrant.  That doesn't seem to be the direction that
this ICANN BoD is heading or preferring.  We [INEGroup] as well
as a number of other groups, find this to be wholly inadequate as well
as inconsistent with the White Paper and the MoU.

[email-masked] wrote:

> Jeff, as opposed to each other I agree, but the fair treatment of all really should
> be the objective.
> Sincerely,
>
> > Another interpretation is that the *threat* of being forced to spin off the
> > registrar allowed competition for registrar services to happen.
> > If this interpretation is correct, the threat has to remain active somehow
> > in order to ensure fair treatment of all registrars.
>
>   Seems to me that what is important is the fair treatment of the REGISTRANTS,
> not the registrars.  This is something that the ICANN BoD needs to concentrate
> on rather than the Registrar side of the equation.
>
> >
> >
> >

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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:36:27 +1100
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Meeting of the Morning 11 March 2001 ICANN Melbourne

The morning recording did indeed have an audio quality problem (which, of
course, did not affect the webcast) rendering some portions quite difficult
to understand.  We expect to redigitize the videotape original recording
either later tonight or tomorrow.  Until then, nothing can be done, as the
VCR and digtizers are already spoken for (in use supporting the Public
Forum), but I nonetheless fully expect to solve this problem within the next
48 hours.  In the worst case, we'll take care of it when we return to the
USA.  Feel free to send me a reminder on March 18 (US day) if it isn't fixed
by then.

The problem was solved during our lunch break, and the NC session recording
should be perfectly intelligible, as should all future recordings of
Melbourne meetings.  As usual I appreciate being told when this is not the
case; for whatever it's worth, I don't believe there's any particular need
to bother the ga list with this information.

Regards,

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 7:28 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Meeting of the Morning 11 March 2001 ICANN Melbourne
>
>
> Hello Ben
>
> I was in attendance during the sessions today remotely.  However, due to
> circumstances beyond my control I missed some substantial parts of the
> morning session.
>
> Being an IDNO member I was especially interested in the comments by Joop
> regarding the IDNO as well as the other issues revolving around an
> individual constituency.
>
> Having tried to listen to the archived real video of this mornings session
> my question is, is there a better copy of the video feed available?  The
> currently archived copy does not allow one the opportunity of
> understanding
> the speakers.  It has an underlying hiss that I found impossible to filter
> out from the feed.
>
> If there is an avi version of this mornings session or a real
> video file of
> it that I could download, it is possible I would be able to clean it up
> enough to listen to.
>
> At any rate I would appreciate notification if there are any downloads of
> the audio made available.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
>
>

- --
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 22:53:12 +1100
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New contracts

At 08:56 PM 3/7/2001, DPF wrote:
>NSI/Verisign have already said that they would like an
>extension.

That is not what they said in today's Names Council meeting.  They cited 
the deadline and said that they would implement the requirments from the 
current contract if the new one was not adopted by then.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
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 22:25:16 +1100
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

At 07:34 AM 3/9/2001, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:
>I agree that's nothing wrong in having Joe as counsel, as it would
>not be wrong to have NC and DNSO as counsel.

Siegfried,

There is a very large difference between interacting with an individual and 
interacting with a group.

This was made abundantly clear during today's Names Council meeting in 
Melbourne.

The Names Council spent all of its time complaining about the process and 
timing of the proposed new Verisign contract.  They spent no time at all 
considering the actual merits of the proposal.

Hence they chose to provide no constructive input to the ICANN Board.

 From an individual staff consultant, such dereliction of duty would not be 
tolerated.

>so the question is : why cancel the rules which had the success
>they were made for ? because of the success ?

Because the current contract grossly favors Verisign, to the detriment of 
the community.  As you cite the greatly reduced price for a registration, 
such as the excellent price from your own joker.com (that I have used 
multiple times) let us note that the registry price is still a factor of 
3-6 times higher than it should be.

Another example of the gross disproportion:  Verisign has 3 TLDs when other 
registries have (will have) only one.

A contract which brings Verisign closer -- no doubt not as close as we all 
would like, but still, closer -- to being treated the same as any other 
gTLD registry should be automatically appealing.

We need to be very careful to consider the importance of rejecting the 
proposed contract.  For example, if we reject a proposal that largely 
"regularizes" the arrangement with Verisign, imagine how much stronger 
Verisign's legal position becomes when they need to defend the 
disproportionate advantages they were granted in the current contract.

Let's all try to focus on the real content of the proposed contract, rather 
than being distracted by inevitable imperfections of process.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
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 #271
************************