Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #273
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, March 12 2001            Volume 01 : Number 273

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

Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 21:53:14 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions - Verisign Contract

WXW, Dave and all remaining assembly members,

  It seems obvious to me that there is more here than meets the eye.  Ergo,
the ICANN BoD, and possibly even Verisign, has an ulterior motive
for getting the new contract ratified or approved.  Some obvious pitfalls
are eluded to in the new proposed contract that Louis and Joe seem to
be hell bent on getting approved.  Therefore it seems to me that Dave
Crocker, in an attempt to ingratiate himself with the ICANN BoD
is simply parroting their supposed desires...  An nice bit of politicking,
but it's not going over very well.

  Indeed William is right here, Dave, you need to provide some FACTS
regarding your position rather than just rambling on.  Of course many of
us are oh so familiar with your fixation about FACTS, however you seem to
be much less willing to provide them when requested yourself to do so....

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Dave,
>
> Sunday, March 11, 2001, 5:04:14 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> > My own impression is that the proposed contract embodies a superior set of
> > trade-offs.  It is vastly imperfect, of course, and carries probable
> > downsides, but appears to define a more balanced relationship than the
> > current contract.
>
> Let's examine this,then.
>
> Under the new contract:
> 1.  Verisign gets .com forever (unless they really screw up, since the
> presumption in the future will be to their benefit) and gets to keep
> the #1 domain registrar in the world.
>
> 2. net/org, the 2nd and 3rd largest TLDs (which since the competitive
> registrar system started have seen a tremendous growth rate) would be
> spun off, but with the presumption that they would no longer be
> unrestricted gTLDs, and thus not real competition for .com any longer.
>
> Where is this more balanced than the current contract?
>
> Please specify exactly where you think this is more balanced.
>
> The current contract requires them to spin off the registrar, and lets
> them keep com/net/org for a set period of time, after which they do
> NOT have a presumption of status quo, and so thus they have to
> maintain a high level of performance and service in order to justify
> their keeping the registry.
>
> That sounds a lot more fair and balanced to me, and it also sounds a
> lot more likely to be of benefit to the internet community at large,
> and better espouse the principles of competition in the domain market.
>
> So back up your statements with some facts, please, Dave.
>
> --
> 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

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 22:03:59 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Jonathan and all remaining assembly members,

  Agreed.  However many of us saw this a few weeks back now.

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

> At 03:00 AM 3/12/2001 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >Personally, I prefer the old contract.
> >I believe that the separation between Registrar and Registry (or, rather,
> >to keep the principle of the separation) will be more beneficial than the
> >reassignment of .org.
> >The reassignment of .org is just a matter of "quantity", i.e. it reduces
> >(of a quantity of which the significancy is doubtful) the overall market
> >share of Verisign, while the current contract aims at changing the quality
> >of the presence, i.e. prevent contemporary presence at the Registry and
> >Registrar level for the same TLD.
> >This was, BTW, one of the basic principles of the contract, and to abandon
> >this is a major change that has to be discussed.
>  >[snip]
>
>          I believe that the proposed revisions cannot be approved by April
> 1 if there is to be anything left of the notion that ICANN is a bottom-up
> organization.  But if I were to speak to the merits, I would agree with
> Roberto.  One of the reasons that the proposals have so conspicuously
> failed to win community support is that the arguments made in their favor
> are so implausible.  Maintaining the .com and .net registries together with
> the dominant registrar has plain anticompetitive potential; the fact that
> there are now independent registrars with their own market share is not
> itself a reason to abandon a procompetitive divestiture.  ICANN staff have
> urged that the benefit to this transaction lies in making the Verisign
> registry contract look like the proposed new TLD registry contracts, but
> they have not explained why (other than on esthetic grounds) we should view
> that congruence as overridingly important.  Nor does the procompetitive
> benefit, if any, of causing Verisign to spin off .org begin to outweigh the
> disadvantages the contract would bring.
>
> Jon
>
> Jonathan Weinberg
> co-chair, Working Group C
> Professor of Law, Wayne State University
> [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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:44:35 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New contracts

On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:57:40 -0000, you wrote:

>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!

This is good to hear.  I think it is important to note that most of us
are not resistant to change, but that before ditching the status quo
there needs to be much much better justification of the proposal and
thorough examination of the potentials gains and losses for all
affected stake holders.

Personally I believe there is *some* merit in the proposal and it
would be nice to see if we can spin off *.org and *.net early.
However as it stands the asking price is far too high.  If Verisign
and ICANN are not pig headed about it and agree to a 2 or 3 month
extension to existing deadline then a compromise may be achievable.
However if they insist on an all or nothing approach, I believe there
is no mandate to move away from the status quo.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:57:10 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:06:14 +1100, Dave Crocker wrote:

>There is never enough time.  There are always constraints.  It is trivially 
>easy to put forward many complaints.

Yes it is but it is also trivially easy to judge if complaints are
trivial or have real substance.  IMO what has correctly been described
as proposed major policy reversals without time to consult is not
trivial.

>The hard work is in living in the reality of this world and trying to be 
>constructive.  The Names Council chose to waste its time complaining.

As I said elsewhere they do not have a mandate to make up policy on
the spot on their own.  their role is to seek consensus.  I'm suer as
individuals they had many views on the proposals.

>Even more fascinating is the implication that the Names Council believes it 
>should be part of contract negotiations.  I'd be interested in hearing 
>about other organizations that are involved in line management and 
>operations, that use such an inefficient management model.

This over-states the issue.  No-one suggests a committee should
negotiate a contract.  However it is usual for such negotiations to
take place within an approved framework or upon request from a Board.

This proposal was not requested by the DNSO or the ICANN BoD.  At no
stage did the staff seek Board or DNSO input as to what is or is not
acceptable to negotiate.  If they had then it might well be possible
to quickly endorse such a contract, but by failing to get any
negotiating framework it is little surprise that there are objections
from those elected to policy bodies.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 18:01:16 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:04:14 +1100, you wrote:

>My own impression is that the proposed contract embodies a superior set of 
>trade-offs.  It is vastly imperfect, of course, and carries probable 
>downsides, but appears to define a more balanced relationship than the 
>current contract.

Could you please detail what these superior trade offs are because I
am genuinely mystified.  There seem to be huge benefits to Verisign
and little in return.

Will ICANN make more money from this?  Will domain name fees be
cheaper?  Will there be more or less potential conflicts of interest?
Will existing domain name holders find it harder or easier to renew
their domains?  WIll it be harder or easier to change registry if it
not doing as good a job as desired?

DPF

- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 01:25:12 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New contracts

On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:57:40 -0000, you wrote:

>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!

This is good to hear.  I think it is important to note that most of us
are not resistant to change, but that before ditching the status quo
there needs to be much much better justification of the proposal and
thorough examination of the potentials gains and losses for all
affected stake holders.

Personally I believe there is *some* merit in the proposal and it
would be nice to see if we can spin off *.org and *.net early.
However as it stands the asking price is far too high.  If Verisign
and ICANN are not pig headed about it and agree to a 2 or 3 month
extension to existing deadline then a compromise may be achievable.
However if they insist on an all or nothing approach, I believe there
is no mandate to move away from the status quo.

DPF

David and all remaining members,

Worst Case Scenario: The BoD approves the new contract and, as a direct
result, a significant policy change is made without proper consideration
having been given to either a) input from DNSO or b) concerns expressed by
the GAC.

Question: Can the GAC and DNSO then appeal/ reverse the decision under any
circumstances?

The point is, that while 11th hour comments to an 11th hour proposal can be
effective, this seems to involve communicating directly with the decision
makers in an informal way, which is no substitute for formal process. I
question whether it is necessary to play games instigated by ICANN staff and
to follow their rules in a situation where perfectly good Bylaws already
exist to deal with this matter in an orderly manner.

It could be that the answer is for the GA to ignore ICANN staff priorities
on this particular issue and proceed by putting the ICANN BoD on formal
Notice that DNSO seeks to enforce a consultation period regarding the new
contracts. Furthermore, that if a reasonable opportunity for consultation is
denied, as is both desirable and necessary, then any contract entered into
by ICANN with Verisign/NSI could be viewed as premature and ill-considered
and consequently may be invalidated at a later date by due process, using
the full force of ICANN's Bylaws and the GAC.

Added to that, it might be worth the GA self-organizing a small WG of all
members posting on this topic within the past 7 days, ensuring diversity by
involving at least one member from each constituency, together with
interested persons from the GA list. It should be possible for the NC to
endorse such a proposal well within stated deadlines.

In the meantime, I agree the status quo should remain, since this is the
only option that does not involve ICANN in a major policy change, whatever
the merits of the new contract may ultimately prove to be.

Sincerely,
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

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 19:38:51 +1100
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Melbourne Public Forum Complete, Board Meeting Tomorrow

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 7:33 PM
To: ICANN Melbourne Remote Participants & Remote Participant Preregistrants
Subject: UPDATE: ICANN-Melbourne Public Forum Complete, Board Meeting
Tomorrow

Greetings!

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

Today's ICANN Public Forum is now complete, and archives of this session and
yesterday's DNSO meetings have been posted in the online meeting archive at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive>.  Archives include
agendas, scribe's notes, documents and presentations used, real-time
questions received, and online discussion logs.  A portion of RealVideo
archives have been posted, and the remainder will be posted within the next
24 hours.

Meetings resume tomorrow at 8:30AM local time with the ICANN Board Meeting.
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; note that
tomorrow's Board Meeting begins at 8:30AM local time, which is 4:30PM [March
11, the day before] US Eastern time, 9:30PM [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 Board Meeting or if you wish to review
content generated during yesterday's Public Forum, be advised that complete
archives are posted to
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive> at the conclusion of
each session.

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

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:52:35 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New contracts

Joanna Lane wrote:
>
>Added to that, it might be worth the GA self-organizing a small WG of all
>members posting on this topic within the past 7 days, ensuring diversity by
>involving at least one member from each constituency, together with
>interested persons from the GA list. It should be possible for the NC to
>endorse such a proposal well within stated deadlines.

Independently from the possibility to organize formal structures, which may 
eat up time, I would recommend that GA members provide comments to ICANN.
The NC will, IMHO, try to discuss this issue on its teleconference on 
2000-04-10 at the latest, and NC reps should have community input in the 
next week or so.

I am afraid that it is not in our interest to lose time.

Of course w can propose at the same time a WG (that should be focusred on 
*policy*, not this individual contract, i.e. on the answer to the question: 
"is it still worth to have separation btw Registry and Registrar for a large 
gTLD?"
But in the meantime, please comment individually on the matter.

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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 04:31:38 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Melbourne Public Forum Complete, Board Meeting Tomorrow

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ben
Edelman
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 3:39 AM
Today's ICANN Public Forum is now complete, and archives of this session and
yesterday's DNSO meetings have been posted in the online meeting archive at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive>.  Archives include
agendas, scribe's notes, documents and presentations used, real-time
questions received, and online discussion logs.  A portion of RealVideo
archives have been posted, and the remainder will be posted within the next
24 hours.

FYI the first portion of RealVideo Archive does not start until 48:00:00.

Note to Ben:
I do not appreciate 48 minutes of my life being wasted while waiting for
your recording to actually start. 30 seconds is ample. Your co-operation
with future recordings would be appreciated. Thank you.
Joanna

- --
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 04:36:25 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New contracts

Dave and all remaining assembly members,

DPF wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:57:40 -0000, you wrote:
>
> >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!
>
> This is good to hear.  I think it is important to note that most of us
> are not resistant to change, but that before ditching the status quo
> there needs to be much much better justification of the proposal and
> thorough examination of the potentials gains and losses for all
> affected stake holders.

  Exactly right here Dave.  Nicely articulated as well...

>
>
> Personally I believe there is *some* merit in the proposal and it
> would be nice to see if we can spin off *.org and *.net early.

  Yes there is...

>
> However as it stands the asking price is far too high.  If Verisign
> and ICANN are not pig headed about it and agree to a 2 or 3 month
> extension to existing deadline then a compromise may be achievable.
> However if they insist on an all or nothing approach, I believe there
> is no mandate to move away from the status quo.

  Exactly right again.  The price is far to high, and it seems that
both principal parties (Verisign and the ICANN BoD) are being pig
headed about it as well.  This is not satisfactory nor is it in the
best interests of the stakeholders.

>
>
> DPF
> --
> [email-masked]
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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 04:44:31 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Eric and all remaining assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> The perception of improper conduct is just that; a perception.  There remains a lot
> of work to do in order to get this assembly into a position to give the staff
> positive and coninuos feedback on thier actions.  A properly working GA can have
> the effect of mitigating this kind of problem.  Timing and forwarning are critical
> and from my observations, while no one will admit it, "staff" has learned a
> valuable lesson that i idealistcally hope they will learn from and change.  The NC
> may not be all we want yet but they are bright and protective of what the perceive
> as their dominion.

  Agreed Eric, the perception is just that, a perception.  Yet I believe it
is an accurate one none the less.  Feedback should be both positive and negative
where appropriate.  Not ONLY positive as you seem to be indicating here.
Anything less than this is more along the lines of "Painting a Rosy Picture"
that may or may not exist.  That would be both unwise, and not in the
best interest of the stakeholders.

>
>
> ---- Original Message ----
>
> Jonathan and all remaining assembly members,
>
>   Agreed.  However many of us saw this a few weeks back now.
>
> Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>
> > At 03:00 AM 3/12/2001 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > >Personally, I prefer the old contract.
> > >I believe that the separation between Registrar and Registry (or, rather,
> > >to keep the principle of the separation) will be more beneficial than the
> > >reassignment of .org.
> > >The reassignment of .org is just a matter of "quantity", i.e. it reduces
> > >(of a quantity of which the significancy is doubtful) the overall market
> > >share of Verisign, while the current contract aims at changing the quality
> > >of the presence, i.e. prevent contemporary presence at the Registry and
> > >Registrar level for the same TLD.
> > >This was, BTW, one of the basic principles of the contract, and to abandon
> > >this is a major change that has to be discussed.
> >  >[snip]
> >
> >          I believe that the proposed revisions cannot be approved by April
> > 1 if there is to be anything left of the notion that ICANN is a bottom-up
> > organization.  But if I were to speak to the merits, I would agree with
> > Roberto.  One of the reasons that the proposals have so conspicuously
> > failed to win community support is that the arguments made in their favor
> > are so implausible.  Maintaining the .com and .net registries together with
> > the dominant registrar has plain anticompetitive potential; the fact that
> > there are now independent registrars with their own market share is not
> > itself a reason to abandon a procompetitive divestiture.  ICANN staff have
> > urged that the benefit to this transaction lies in making the Verisign
> > registry contract look like the proposed new TLD registry contracts, but
> > they have not explained why (other than on esthetic grounds) we should view
> > that congruence as overridingly important.  Nor does the procompetitive
> > benefit, if any, of causing Verisign to spin off .org begin to outweigh the
> > disadvantages the contract would bring.
> >
> > Jon
> >

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 21:44:48 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New contracts

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: On Behalf Of Jeff Williams
|> Sent: Monday, 12 March 2001 11:36 PM
|> Subject: Re: [ga] New contracts

|>   Exactly right again.  The price is far to high, and it seems that
|> both principal parties (Verisign and the ICANN BoD) are being pig
|> headed about it as well.  This is not satisfactory nor is it in the
|> best interests of the stakeholders.

There are three principle parties involved with the contracts and I consider
the ICANN Board itself has been put on the spot a bit with this issue.  I
consider the ICANN staff and legal representatives have some sharp questions
to answer to with regards to the timing on this proposed contract.

It is up to those in the DNSO who feel strongly on this matter to make sure
the ICANN Board is made aware of their concerns.

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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 05:06:25 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New contracts

Roberto and all remaining assembly members,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Joanna Lane wrote:
> >
> >Added to that, it might be worth the GA self-organizing a small WG of all
> >members posting on this topic within the past 7 days, ensuring diversity by
> >involving at least one member from each constituency, together with
> >interested persons from the GA list. It should be possible for the NC to
> >endorse such a proposal well within stated deadlines.
>
> Independently from the possibility to organize formal structures, which may
> eat up time, I would recommend that GA members provide comments to ICANN.
> The NC will, IMHO, try to discuss this issue on its teleconference on
> 2000-04-10 at the latest, and NC reps should have community input in the
> next week or so.
>
> I am afraid that it is not in our interest to lose time.
>
> Of course w can propose at the same time a WG (that should be focusred on
> *policy*, not this individual contract, i.e. on the answer to the question:
> "is it still worth to have separation btw Registry and Registrar for a large
> gTLD?"
> But in the meantime, please comment individually on the matter.

  Good point here, Roberto.  It could be that in some instances the
registry and registrar functions can or should be performed by the
same entity.  As such, this needs to be debated and discussed.
I would add however that each contract let in this regard with the
new gTLD's should be reviewed separately by the DNSO GA
before acceptance, and that such acceptance should be the will
of the GA before the ICANN BoD may let these possible
contracts....

>
>
> 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

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 05:09:37 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Melbourne Public Forum Complete, Board Meeting Tomorrow

Joanna, Ben and all remaining assembly members,

  I agree with Joanna here also.  I would add that as in every other
ICANN meeting the remote participation capability is below
a reasonable standard and quite poor....

Joanna Lane wrote:

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ben
> Edelman
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 3:39 AM
> Today's ICANN Public Forum is now complete, and archives of this session and
> yesterday's DNSO meetings have been posted in the online meeting archive at
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive>.  Archives include
> agendas, scribe's notes, documents and presentations used, real-time
> questions received, and online discussion logs.  A portion of RealVideo
> archives have been posted, and the remainder will be posted within the next
> 24 hours.
>
> FYI the first portion of RealVideo Archive does not start until 48:00:00.
>
> Note to Ben:
> I do not appreciate 48 minutes of my life being wasted while waiting for
> your recording to actually start. 30 seconds is ample. Your co-operation
> with future recordings would be appreciated. Thank you.
> Joanna
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:31:30 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On 2001-03-11 09:57:43 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> 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?

Actually, I'd like to quote Hans Kraaijenbrink (in the Scribe's
words) on this one:

	"IOD goes against everything we ve worked on the last two
	years they join registrar and registry, and they have a high
	price."

See also:
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/archive/scribe-icann-111600.html>

Kraaijenbrink's contribution is the last paragraph of D.5.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler			    <[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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:40:35 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Colleagues-

Speaking personally the (new) deal may have some merits. Of course, any deal
that took months to negotiate can hardly be reviewed in a few days. I
disagree with the "throw away" remark "There is never enough time"

Speaking as a NC member (ccTLD), we have an obligation to advise the BoD on
policy. No matter what anyone else has said, in my opinion there is a policy
shift here. Again, I am not saying it is a "bad deal", just that it is
clearly a policy shift.

Process is important, especially in these days of intense ICANN scrutiny.

Therefore, I will argue for an extension of 30 days, which, I am sure if
VSGN and ICANN agreed on, would be accepted by US DOC.

That would provide a short, but reasonable time to evaluate, discuss with
our constituencies, provide inputs to the BoD, and respect the ICANN
process.

Assuming the outcome of the advice was to go with the new deal rather than
maintaining the "automatic status quo" of the existing deal, there would be
an opportunity for the larger Internet community to "buy into" the benefits
of the new deal. This action would vaildate the legitimacy of the ICANN
process, instead of destroying it.

Assuming the outcome of the advice was to retain the status quo, I can not
see that another 30 days delay in the implimentation could possibly have a
great downside.

peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of DPF
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 12:57 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:06:14 +1100, Dave Crocker wrote:

>There is never enough time.  There are always constraints.  It is trivially
>easy to put forward many complaints.

Yes it is but it is also trivially easy to judge if complaints are
trivial or have real substance.  IMO what has correctly been described
as proposed major policy reversals without time to consult is not
trivial.

>The hard work is in living in the reality of this world and trying to be
>constructive.  The Names Council chose to waste its time complaining.

As I said elsewhere they do not have a mandate to make up policy on
the spot on their own.  their role is to seek consensus.  I'm suer as
individuals they had many views on the proposals.

>Even more fascinating is the implication that the Names Council believes it
>should be part of contract negotiations.  I'd be interested in hearing
>about other organizations that are involved in line management and
>operations, that use such an inefficient management model.

This over-states the issue.  No-one suggests a committee should
negotiate a contract.  However it is usual for such negotiations to
take place within an approved framework or upon request from a Board.

This proposal was not requested by the DNSO or the ICANN BoD.  At no
stage did the staff seek Board or DNSO input as to what is or is not
acceptable to negotiate.  If they had then it might well be possible
to quickly endorse such a contract, but by failing to get any
negotiating framework it is little surprise that there are objections
from those elected to policy bodies.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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 07:32:42 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New contracts

Dassa and all remaining assembly members,

Dassa wrote:

> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: On Behalf Of Jeff Williams
> |> Sent: Monday, 12 March 2001 11:36 PM
> |> Subject: Re: [ga] New contracts
>
> |>   Exactly right again.  The price is far to high, and it seems that
> |> both principal parties (Verisign and the ICANN BoD) are being pig
> |> headed about it as well.  This is not satisfactory nor is it in the
> |> best interests of the stakeholders.
>
> There are three principle parties involved with the contracts and I consider
> the ICANN Board itself has been put on the spot a bit with this issue.  I
> consider the ICANN staff and legal representatives have some sharp questions
> to answer to with regards to the timing on this proposed contract.

  Agreed that the ICANN BoD and staff are on the spot.  However
they put themselves there to a great extent.  Ergo, sympathy in this regard
is very little.

  Indeed the ICANN BoD and staff have some sharp questions to answer
as you purport, however indirect answers will not be sufficient.

>
>
> It is up to those in the DNSO who feel strongly on this matter to make sure
> the ICANN Board is made aware of their concerns.

  Of course.  In fact in accordance with the Bylaws, the ICANN BoD is
required to consult and act upon the DNSO's recommendations.  This was
not done adequately if at all, in any real sense with the proposed contract
"Deal" with Verisign.  As such, the ICANN BoD yet again has thwarted
its responsibilities to the stakeholder community to this extent.  That is
not expectable behavior, and the ICANN BoD and staff should be
disciplined accordingly....

>
>
> 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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #273
************************