Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #278
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, March 14 2001          Volume 01 : Number 278

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

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:27:57 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] My analysis of proposed changes to NSI contract

A. The .org registry would be able to use the VeriSign GRS global
constellations of name servers (gTLD name servers).

B. To do your own analysis of the point noted as B below, take a look at
these sections: Existing agreement - 3.C; new .org and .net agreements, 4.
There may be other issues as well, but in my PERSONAL opinion, a careful
comparison of these sections is useful here.  BTW, that is based on my own
analysis on the flight to Melbourne, not on any corporate analysis.

C. The problem I had with Michael Palage's accusations was that he implied
that the VeriSign Registry had intentionally violated its responsibility to
avoid favoritism of the NSI Registrar over others.  As the last public
comment of the day, Michael clarified that these were simply allegations.  I
would never say that there have not been any complaints of conflicts of
interest, but as Compliance Officer for the Registry I can confidently say
that none of them have ever proved that any discriminatory practices were
performed by the Registry.  Moreover, I can tell you that we have asked
ICANN for a list of the "alleged" complaints in Melbourne, and I can assure
you that I will personally evaluate each one that involves the Registry.

D. It is not my place to speak for ICANN with regard to what the projections
are with regard to actual dollar impacts nor am I sure that anyone can
accurately predict this, but this is an area where all three agreements
(com, net and org) conform to the new TLD agreements.  Compare Section 6 of
the old Registry agreement to Section 7 of the new .com agreement and to
Section 3.14 in the .org. .net and new sponsored TLD agreements.

Chuck Gomes

- -----Original Message-----
From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 4:58 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] My analysis of proposed changes to NSI contract

(Portions of message deleted.)

A.

>, and would make global resolution resources available to the operator 
>of the .org registry for no charge for one year and on terms to be 
>determined thereafter, for so long as it operates the .com registry. 

I don't actually understand what resolution services are being
referred to here.  I'm sure someone more knowledgable can specify
these for me.

(Text deleted)

B.

>4. The existing agreement would be amended to provide that (1) it 
>applies only to the .com registry; (2) to conform it in many but not all 
>respects to the template of the registry agreements that will be 
>entered into by the new global TLD registry operators

This has been held up as some major gain yet details have been hard to
come by.  The best analysis seems to be from Peter de Blanc who said
"Clever lawyers would find a lot less to be creative about in the new
contract.".  This is useful of course.  I do wonder if the existing
contract is so deficient whether the same staff were used to draw it
up, as did the proposed new contract!!

(Text deleted)

C.

>5. The requirement in Section 23 for the separation of legal ownership 
>of the VeriSign registry and registrar businesses would be eliminated, 

(Text deleted)

The ICANN staff assert there have been no complaints about NSI giving
unfavourable treatment to other Registrars (I note though that at
least one Registrar disputes that).  This however is in an environment
where NSI knows it will be losing its Registrar business.  There is
some risk that the combination of keeping its Registrar business and
gaining a near permanent grip on *.com, could lead to an environment
where there are more complaints.

D.

>7. In all three of these new registry agreements, the existing limits on 
>VeriSign's responsibility to share in the cost recovery efforts of ICANN 
>would be amended to conform to the relevant provisions of the registry 
>agreements with the other registry operators that have been negotiated. 

Okay can someone who knows the details please clarify whether this in
practice is likely to mean a cent more to ICANN or not, and if so how
much.

(Text deleted.)

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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 20:58:02 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] My analysis of proposed changes to NSI contract

Chuck Gomes wrote:
> A. The .org registry would be able to use the VeriSign GRS global
> constellations of name servers (gTLD name servers).
> 
> B. To do your own analysis of the point noted as B below, take a look at
> these sections: Existing agreement - 3.C; new .org and .net agreements, 4.
> There may be other issues as well, but in my PERSONAL opinion, a careful
> comparison of these sections is useful here.  BTW, that is based on my own
> analysis on the flight to Melbourne, not on any corporate analysis.

Chuck - thank you for that helpful information.  It is appreciated.  
Incidentially the way you interact here with other GA members is a credit to 
Verisign.

DPF

- --
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:04:52 +1100
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Melbourne Meetings Complete, Archive Now Available

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 3:35 PM
To: ICANN-Melbourne Registrants and Remote Participants
Subject: UPDATE: ICANN-Melbourne Meetings Complete, Archive Now Available

Greetings!

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

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

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.

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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 18:42:46 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] January 2001 Internet host count numbers

I think the GA should consider the following information that .ORG is not
even in the top ten:

Here is a snapshot of the results from the January 2001 Internet
Domain Survey.

          Date    Host Count
         ------  -----------
  Jan-01  109,574,429
         Jul-00   93,047,785
         Jan-00   72,398,000
         Jul-99   56,218,000
         Jan-99   43,230,000

Distribution by Top-Level Domain Name by Host Count
       January 2001 (top 10 shown)

  Domain       Hosts
  -------   ----------
  com       36,352,243
  net       30,885,116
  edu        7,106,062
  jp         4,640,863
  ca         2,364,014
  uk         2,291,369
  us         2,267,089
  de         2,163,326
  mil        1,844,369
  it         1,630,526

More information and data can be found at http://www.isc.org/ds/. The
survey is produced by Network Wizards and Nominum, Inc., and is
sponsored by the Internet Software Consortium.

Vivian Neou
Director of Network Services
Nominum, Inc.

- --
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:48:19 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] My analysis of proposed changes to NSI contract

Just a few thoughts for discussion and thought on one particular aspect of the
proposed changes.

Under the new proposed contract there would not be any requirement to seperate
the Registrar and Registry functions.

I tend to reject any proprosal that eliminates this directive on the following
grounds:

Personally I feel that there is too much commercial activity associated with the
domain name system at the Registry level.  It is my belief that the Internet as
a global community would be best served by having all the Registries for the
TLD's administrated by community entities, be they government or socially
sponsored.  A large number of the ccTLD's are already administrated by community
entities under the approval of the local government.  I would like to see all
gTLD's administrated in a similar manner, not by commercial entities who may not
have the best interests of the Internet as a major concern but who are by
definition bound in their obligations to stock/share holders.

I would like to see all Registry and Registrar functions seperated with each TLD
Registery administrated by a non-profit organisation, not just the .org
Registry.  Commercial interests should only become involved at the Registrar
level and below.

To me, such a structure would ensure the global representation necessary for all
stakeholders at the Registry level.  Such Registries for each gTLD would take
some time to organise but as we have seen with the formation of ICANN, is not an
impossible task.  Each Registry would be committed to delivering a consistant
standard of service and open to all ICANN approved Registrars.

The Internet is a global resource and I perfer to see the major components of
the resource handled by non-profit globally orientated organisations that have
as their sole concern the continued operation and growth of the resource.

In essence, I disapprove the new proposed contracts for the reason they lock
ICANN into a specific form of resource management that we will find increasingly
hard to change.  I would like to see some effort put into introducing change now
under the existing agreement for when the opportunity arises for the changes to
be put into effect.

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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 08:15:23 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Business is business

Dear Dave,
This is pure thinking, feeling, impressions, ie in business terms: "bla 
bla...".

On 02:04 12/03/01, Dave Crocker said:
>If the community benefits are better for the existing contract than for 
>the proposed one, then fine.
>
>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.

Has anyone proposed two forecasts : one under statu-quo, one under new 
contract.
Has anyone presented a two column sheet : cons and pros?

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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 08:15:47 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

This proposed deal has two structural aspects:
- - one seems to be in the best interest of Verisign. We discuss it.
- - the other is hidden by the first one. It is IMHO the most important one. 
It is in the best interest of the Staff, not necessarily in the best 
interest of the majority of the Board. It supports the concept of ICANN 
being an autocractic ruler of the name space, a "taker away" rather than a 
servant of the Community.

This contract decides of the future of the ".org" mission and gives only 
one year to hundred of thousands of questionned ".org" holders to get out. 
The "take away" policy initiatied in MDR against the 5.000 ".biz" existing 
holders (through the devolution of existing ".biz" to JVStream) and the 
ccTLD managers (through the letter to Governments) is applied here on a 
broader scope.

I just wander if this .org refocussing has been discussed anywhere. If this 
is just legal and feasible to force a DN holder out of its DN holdership. 
There will probably be thousands of legal actions against the iCANN which 
could resist only with the strong support of the USG and of the GAC. I just 
wander if the Verisign contract is not just a screen of smoke and the 
".org" charter enforcement not a way to trap the USG into supporting iCANN 
and forcing the GAC to accept the power of the iCANN: in several countries 
such a move is probably illegal, may be anti-constitutional (Chile?).

We saw some US allies pursuing that type of policy with some success in the 
past. I start beeing realy worried at the GAC/Staff relations as it 
develops. I am quite concerned by the "market monopoly enforcement theory" 
that some have proposed:

Obviously this is just a concern ....

Jefsey

On 12:40 12/03/01, Peter de Blanc said:
>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

- --
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 03:00:36 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] understanding is always furthered by facts

Jefsey, what a great idea to do a side by side!  Are there folks who want to
contribute to that? quickly?One advantage to that approach is that
Verisign/NSI or ICANN could be asked to clarify any misunderstandings.
Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 2:15 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Business is business

Dear Dave,
This is pure thinking, feeling, impressions, ie in business terms: "bla 
bla...".

On 02:04 12/03/01, Dave Crocker said:
>If the community benefits are better for the existing contract than for 
>the proposed one, then fine.
>
>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.

Has anyone proposed two forecasts : one under statu-quo, one under new 
contract.
Has anyone presented a two column sheet : cons and pros?

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
- --
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 23:40:51 -0500
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

DNSO was indeed consulted as to the policy for the creation of new
TLDs and gave advice which the board accepted to select a modest number
of TLDs to start this process. The actual selection of a particular TLD
or party to operate its registry is not a policy matter, it is something
that ICANN does - within the policy guidance of the board.

 At 05:13 AM 3/11/2001 +0100, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>Ultimately the point was that the DNSO was not consulted about the
>selection of new TLDs.

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

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

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 15:12:03 -0500
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Roberto,

you have the right question: is the new proposal any better than the default?

As to the time frame, it is not entirely of our choosing. ICANN and VeriSign
began discussing an alternative to the current contract language rather late
in the game and the various deadlines dictate the time we have to make the
choice. I will value your views and those of others who take time to assess
these two alternatives and share their conclusions with the board.

vint

At 04:44 AM 3/13/2001 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>What I would like to add is that in case of doubt it is obvious that the "statu quo" shall be preserved.
>The question is therefore: can the proposers of the change convince us of the benefits of this change for the Internet community beyond doubt, such as the DNSO can recommend a change in the current policy (or at least in the consolidated practice shown in all the consistent decisions so far)? And can this be done in the short timeframe that the contracting parties have chosen to adopt?

- --
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 04:28:59 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Where does it state anywhere that any current .org registrants will have to
give up there names?  Granted that ICANN has stated that it intends to
return .org to its original purpose which has been mischaracterized as for
"non-profit organizations" only.  But I don't think there is anything in the
new agreements that define any procedures in this regard.  My understanding
is that those kinds of decisions will be made independent of the execution
of the new agreements if they are approved.  That includes what the
qualifications will be for new .org registrants and whether or not existing
registrants will be grand fathered.

Chuck Gomes

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 2:16 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

(Text deleted)

This contract decides of the future of the ".org" mission and gives only 
one year to hundred of thousands of questionned ".org" holders to get out. 

(Text deleted)

I just wander if this .org refocussing has been discussed anywhere. If this 
is just legal and feasible to force a DN holder out of its DN holdership. 
There will probably be thousands of legal actions against the iCANN which 
could resist only with the strong support of the USG and of the GAC. I just 
wander if the Verisign contract is not just a screen of smoke and the 
".org" charter enforcement not a way to trap the USG into supporting iCANN 
and forcing the GAC to accept the power of the iCANN: in several countries 
such a move is probably illegal, may be anti-constitutional (Chile?).

We saw some US allies pursuing that type of policy with some success in the 
past. I start beeing realy worried at the GAC/Staff relations as it 
develops. I am quite concerned by the "market monopoly enforcement theory" 
that some have proposed:

Obviously this is just a concern ....

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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 04:47:30 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] January 2001 Internet host count numbers

Bruce,

I am not sure what point you were trying to make, but I believe that using
host counts is a very unreliable way to measure anything about the .org TLD.
Note the following approximate ratios of hosts to domain names: for .com,
considerably less than 2 to 1; for .net, greater than 5 to 1; for .edu,
greater than 1000 to one.

Chuck Gomes

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bruce James [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 7:43 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] January 2001 Internet host count numbers

I think the GA should consider the following information that .ORG is not
even in the top ten:

Here is a snapshot of the results from the January 2001 Internet
Domain Survey.

          Date    Host Count
         ------  -----------
  Jan-01  109,574,429
         Jul-00   93,047,785
         Jan-00   72,398,000
         Jul-99   56,218,000
         Jan-99   43,230,000

Distribution by Top-Level Domain Name by Host Count
       January 2001 (top 10 shown)

  Domain       Hosts
  -------   ----------
  com       36,352,243
  net       30,885,116
  edu        7,106,062
  jp         4,640,863
  ca         2,364,014
  uk         2,291,369
  us         2,267,089
  de         2,163,326
  mil        1,844,369
  it         1,630,526

More information and data can be found at http://www.isc.org/ds/. The
survey is produced by Network Wizards and Nominum, Inc., and is
sponsored by the Internet Software Consortium.

Vivian Neou
Director of Network Services
Nominum, Inc.

- --
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:55:52 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 04:28:59 -0500, Chuck Gomes wrote:

>Where does it state anywhere that any current .org registrants will have to
>give up there names?  Granted that ICANN has stated that it intends to
>return .org to its original purpose which has been mischaracterized as for
>"non-profit organizations" only.  But I don't think there is anything in the
>new agreements that define any procedures in this regard.  My understanding
>is that those kinds of decisions will be made independent of the execution
>of the new agreements if they are approved.  That includes what the
>qualifications will be for new .org registrants and whether or not existing
>registrants will be grand fathered.

This isn't aimed at Verisign or Chuck - he just mentioned the issue.
But I find it damn scary that some people could even consider that
existing registrants in a TLD would not be grand fathered if there is
a policy change.  The thought of hundreds of thousands of registrants
having their domain names forcibly removed from them is quite
horrifiying to me.  

Registrants can invest a lot of money in their domain name and to have
it removed from them due to a policy change is not something that
should happen.  IMO once a Registrant has a domain name they should be
able to keep it for ever as long as they confirm to normal rules (pay
their fees, are not cybersquatting etc).

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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:11:27 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

At 18:33 13/03/01 +1300, DPF wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 04:12:19 +0100, you wrote:
>
>>NC needs input at the latest by 2001-03-25.
>>I am willing to prepare a summary of the discussion on the GA during that 
>>weekend (the 25 is a Sunday).
>
>Thank you - that would be useful.
>
>>We may also think to have a short vote if there is a strong position coming 
>>out during the next 7 to 10 days.
>
>I think a vote would be useful to indicate strength of feeling.
>

Agree. The outcome of a vote should be central in the report that the NC
will provide to the Board.

So what should be the text of the voting options? (after debate)

A. the NC report should advise to the ICANN Board that it is the wish of
the stakeholders in the DNS to go ahead and sign the 2001 agreement
prepared and negotiated by the ICANN Staff.

B. The NC report should advise to the ICANN Board that it is the wish of
the stakeholders in the DNS to do nothing and NOT to sign the 
2001 agreement prepared and negotiated by the ICANN Staff, thus allowing
Verisign to fall back on the 1999 agreement.

C. The NC report should recommend to the ICANN Board NOT to sign the new
agreement prepared and negotiated by the Staff, but, if possible, seek ,
with the agreement of the Department of Commerce, an extension of the 10
May deadline in order to amend the new  contract with Verisign to achieve
better terms for all DNS stakeholders. 
(suggestions for such better terms should be appended to the report.
Example: an undertaking not to change the status-quo for any .org
regsitrants) 

D. Is there any other option?

Ideally  each constituency should vote separately on these options, so that
the outcome for the diverse results can be reflected in the NC report to
the Board.
Input from the Individuals' constituency should be sought via the GA and
everybody on the list should do a personal outreach effort to enroll as
many voters as possible.
In view of the very short timeframe a cut-off date to freeze the voters
roll does not seem practicable or desirable.

Please comment/improve on the text of the voting options. 
A paragraph of discussion summary  for each option would be welcome.

At least the debate has started. <g>

- --Joop--
Former bootstrap of the CA/idno
       The Polling Booth 
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:10:17 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Chair NOMINATION

At 22:05 12/03/01 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:

>>Let's have an interim chair for a few weeks just to oversee this "internet
>>time" input process.
>>And please let the moderators not be tolerant to those who would aim to
>>disturb a fast-track consensus process.
>
>Who would you propose ?
>Joanna
>

I just read that Roberto and Harald will stay on their post until relieved.
This helps.

Otherwise I would like to say that Danny Younger (babybows.com) has really
impressed me in the last four days in Melbourne. 
I would nominate him for chair and Patrick Corliss for co-chair.
In view of the 24-hour requirements on a GA chair, I think we really should
strive to elect a Chair and a co-chair, on a ticket -based approach,
ideally with a 12 hour time zone between them, so that they can divide the
burdens of the volunteer job  between them.

In other words, the candidates should propose their preferred "running
mate" before the election.

- --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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:10:20 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Update: ICANN delays decision on Verisign power deal

At 04:12 13/03/01 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

>>Let's have an interim chair for a few weeks just to oversee this "internet
>>time" input process.
>
>????
>I don't have any interest in staying in office longer than strictly 
>necessary for the GA to decide a successor, but I will not leave one day 
>earlier than the moment in which a new chair will be in office.
>I think that it is in order that the current Chair + Alt Chair coordinate 
>this phase.

Well that is good news. Thank you Roberto. 

- --Joop--
Former bootstrap of the CA/idno
       The Polling Booth 
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:33:09 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On 2001-03-14 22:55:52 +1300, DPF wrote:

> Registrants can invest a lot of money in their domain name and to
> have it removed from them due to a policy change is not something
> that should happen.  IMO once a Registrant has a domain name they
> should be able to keep it for ever as long as they confirm to
> normal rules (pay their fees, are not cybersquatting etc).

Indeed.  After all, why should anyone worry about the stability of
registry operators when the stability of existing domain names
depends on today's mood on the ICANN board?

More seriously, I just can't believe that anyone on the board, at
Verisign, or in the DNSO can even think about policy changes which
would have the effect to remove exiting domain names which were
registered and are being used in good faith and according to the
rules.

- -- 
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 06:13:42 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

>>D. Is there any other option?<<

I suggest that we have a Straw Poll. This would speed things up.

    1.)  Keep the current VeriSign contract.

    2.)  Agree to the new VeriSign contract.

A simple vote for number 1 or 2. I think this would help the GA, as a whole.

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>
To: "DPF" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 3:11 AM
Subject: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

At 18:33 13/03/01 +1300, DPF wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 04:12:19 +0100, you wrote:
>
>>NC needs input at the latest by 2001-03-25.
>>I am willing to prepare a summary of the discussion on the GA during that
>>weekend (the 25 is a Sunday).
>
>Thank you - that would be useful.
>
>>We may also think to have a short vote if there is a strong position
coming
>>out during the next 7 to 10 days.
>
>I think a vote would be useful to indicate strength of feeling.
>

Agree. The outcome of a vote should be central in the report that the NC
will provide to the Board.

So what should be the text of the voting options? (after debate)

A. the NC report should advise to the ICANN Board that it is the wish of
the stakeholders in the DNS to go ahead and sign the 2001 agreement
prepared and negotiated by the ICANN Staff.

B. The NC report should advise to the ICANN Board that it is the wish of
the stakeholders in the DNS to do nothing and NOT to sign the
2001 agreement prepared and negotiated by the ICANN Staff, thus allowing
Verisign to fall back on the 1999 agreement.

C. The NC report should recommend to the ICANN Board NOT to sign the new
agreement prepared and negotiated by the Staff, but, if possible, seek ,
with the agreement of the Department of Commerce, an extension of the 10
May deadline in order to amend the new  contract with Verisign to achieve
better terms for all DNS stakeholders.
(suggestions for such better terms should be appended to the report.
Example: an undertaking not to change the status-quo for any .org
regsitrants)

D. Is there any other option?

Ideally  each constituency should vote separately on these options, so that
the outcome for the diverse results can be reflected in the NC report to
the Board.
Input from the Individuals' constituency should be sought via the GA and
everybody on the list should do a personal outreach effort to enroll as
many voters as possible.
In view of the very short timeframe a cut-off date to freeze the voters
roll does not seem practicable or desirable.

Please comment/improve on the text of the voting options.
A paragraph of discussion summary  for each option would be welcome.

At least the debate has started. <g>

- --Joop--
Former bootstrap of the CA/idno
       The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

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

- --
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 #278
************************