Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #279
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, March 14 2001          Volume 01 : Number 279

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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 06:15:12 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

At 3:12 pm -0500 3/13/01, vint cerf wrote:
>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.

1. Verisign started negotiations late, because that suited its purpose.

2. Verisign is refusing to extend the original contract, because that suits
its purpose.

3. ICANN's answer should be "you waited too long, so the original contract
stands".

End of story.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:22:52 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] com/net/org versus proposed .com agreement

Changes between current .com/.net/.org agreement
and proposed new .com agreement (section numbers
refer to the new proposal)

______________________________________________________
I. Definitions:
- - I.1. "Consensus Policies" defined as "specifications
  or policies" (prev. only "policies")

- - I.1.C. Consensus Policies have to be necessary to
  "maintain the operational stability of Registry Services,
  the DNS or the Internet" (prev. "the stability of the
  Internet or the operation of the domain name system").
  Renewal of temporary Consensus Policy confirmation
  every 90 days, reaffirmed for not more than one year
  (prev. every 45 days; reaffirmed for max. 180 days)

- - I.1.E. New section: Registry operator has "reasonable 
  period of time, not to exceed four months" for 
  implementation of policy

- - I.6. Definition of "Registered Name" (the name the
  registry is dealing with, be it second-level as in
  example.com or third-level as in john.smith.name)

- - I.7. "Registry data" definition now uses the term
  "Registry Services"

- - I.8. New definition "Registry Database"

- - I.9. "Registry Services" now includes "dissemination of
  contact and other information" for domains in the TLD
  "and such other services required by ICANN through the
  establishment of Consensus Policies"; does not include
  "the provision of name service for a domain used by a
  single entity under a Registered Name"
______________________________________________________
II. Agreements:
- - II.5. New section "Use of ICANN name" license

- - II.6. Modified "Protection from Burdens of Compliance
  With ICANN Policies": ICANN shall indemnify, "defend" (new),
  and hold harmless Registry Operator from and against
  claims, damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses,
  "including reasonable legal fees and expenses" (new),
  arising from compliance with an ICANN specification or
  policy -- unless (new) "it was possible for Registry
  Operator to comply in a manner by which the claims,
  damages, or liabilities would not arise". Additionally,
  ICANN may elect to choose an insurance solution.

- - II.7. *MAJOR CHANGE*: "Registry-Level Financial Support
  of ICANN" uses the same model as in the proposed
  unsponsored TLD agreements. There is a fixed registry
  fee and a variable registry fee, both have a price cap
  (maximum payment by registry) which automatically increases
  by 15% per annum. The fixed fee cap shall be $25,000 per
  quarter, the variable fee cap $3,500,000 per year (both
  figures for Jun-02). The "old" agreement had a clause that
  all payments above $250,000 had to be approved by the
  registry (de-facto price cap).

- - II.8. New section: Registry operate provides a monthly
  report on operation of the registry.

- - II.9. Data escrow: The "old" agreement has a section about
  the release of data held in escrow (third party data
  depository) to ICANN or to the US Department of Commerce
  which the proposed new agreement doesn't have.

- - II.11.A. Whois access: The specifications for Whois access
  are set forth in an Appendix (the old agreement specified
  the data elements directly). Now, the registry operator
  may request additional data elements, "in which event ICANN
  shall act to supplement the specification in a reasonable
  manner within a reasonable time."

- - II.11.B. Temporary limit to Whois access: The initial time
  period is set a five (prev. three) business days.

- - II.11.C. Use of Whois data: Now "Registry Operator shall not
  impose terms and conditions on use of the data provided
  except as permitted by policy established by ICANN".
  Use for commercial soliciations by e-mail, telephone or fax
  and "high volume, automated, electronic processes that send
  queries or data to the systems of Registry" are expressly
  not allowed.

- - II.11.E. Bulk access to registry data: The registry operator
  provides public bulk access to registry data and bulk access for
  ICANN itself. In both cases, the specifications can be changed
  by Consensus Policies.

- - II.13. The "Limitation of Liability" section now includes
  specific monetary liability limits and a new and longer
  disclaimer IN CAPITAL LETTERS :)

- - II.16.C/D/E New reasons for terminating the agreement are
  serious offenses related to financial activities by the
  registry operator or its officers/director as well as
  bankruptcy and insolvency.

- - II.18.B. The "old" agreement provided that if there was no
  progress towards competing registries in reasonable time,
  the Cooperative Agreement between NSI and Department of
  Commerce should replace that agreement.

- - II.19/20. The "old" agreement refers to the Registry Service
  Level Agreement and how it will be established (which it
  is now).

- - II.21. Bulk access to zone files: There is now a differentation
  between zone file bulk access to third parties and to ICANN
  (as in II.11.E)

- - II.22. *MAJOR CHANGE*: Price for Registry Services.
  "Old" agreement: The prices for registrars are as set forth
  in the Registrar License and Agreement. They "shall be increased"
  "to reflect demonstrated increases in the net costs of operating
  the registry" arising from ICANN policies or specifially applicable
  legislation "to ensure that NSI recovers such costs and a
  reasonable profit thereon".
  Proposed new agreement: Registry Operator may revise the prices
  provided they don't exceed those set forth in Appendix G.
  [However, as far as I know, this Appendix G has not yet been 
  published, or has it?]

- - II.23.A. ICANN-accredited registrars shall have equivalent access
  not only to the shared registration system (old version), but
  to all Registry Services (new).

- - II.23.C/D. *MAJOR CHANGE*: Registry-registrar separation.
  "Old" agreement: NSI must ensure that "revenues and assets of the
  registry are not utilized to advantage NSI's registrar activities to
  the detriment of other registrars".
  Proposed new agreement: Registry operator shall not act as a
  registrar in .com, but this "shall not preclude an affiliate
  (including wholly-owned subsidiaries) of Registry Operator from acting
  as a registrar", provided "that the revenues and assets of Registry
  Operator are not utilized to advantage registrars that are affiliated
  with Registry Operator to the detriment of other ICANN-accredited
  registrars. For purposes of this Subsection 23(D), funds distributed
  to debt or equity participants in Registry Operator shall no longer be
  deemed revenues and assets of Registry Operator once they are
  distributed."

- - II.24. New section: Registration of (not more than 5000) domain names
  for the registry operator's own use, registration of domain names for
  the registry operator's own use through a registrar, registration of
  domain names for use by ICANN and other organizations responsible for
  coordination of the Internet's infrastructure.

- - II.25. *MAJOR CHANGE*: Successor Registry/Subsequent Agreement.
  "Old" agreement: ICANN shall adopt "an open, transparent procedure for
  designating a Successor Registry" and "NSI or its assignee shall be
  eligible to serve as the Successor Registry".
  Proposed new agreement: Registry operator submits a renewal proposal.
  "Registry Operator shall be awarded a four-year renewal term unless
  ICANN demonstrates that:
      (a) Registry Operator is in material breach of this
          Registry Agreement,
      (b) Registry Operator has not provided and will not provide a
          substantial service to the Internet community in its
          performance under this Registry Agreement,
      (c) Registry Operator is not qualified to operate the Registry
          TLD during the renewal term, or
      (d) the maximum price for initial and renewal registrations
          proposed in the Renewal Proposal exceeds the price permitted
          under Section 22 of this Registry Agreement."

- - *MAJOR CHANGE*: (old II.23) Expiration of Agreement.
  "The Expiration Date shall be four years after the Effective Date,
  unless extended as provided below." (Which means 2003)
  "In the event that NSI completes the legal separation of ownership
  of its Registry Services business from its registrar business by
  divesting all the assets and operations of one of those businesses
  within 18 months after Effective Date" (which means May 2001) "to
  an unaffiliated third party that enters an agreement enforceable
  by ICANN and the Department of Commerce (i) not to be both a
  registry and a registrar in the Registry TLDs, and (ii) not to
  control, own or have as an affiliate any individual(s) or entity(ies)
  that, collectively, act as both a registry and a registrar in the
  Registry TLDs, the Expiration Date shall be extended for an additional
  four years, resulting in a total term of eight years." (Which means
  2007). The terms "unaffiliated third party" and "control" are then
  defined. There is no such clause in the proposed new agreements.

- - II.29. New section: Subcontracting for more than 80% of the value of
  all TLD operations without ICANN's consent is not allowed, but the
  consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.

- - II.30. New section: Force Majeure (unforeseeable circumstances)

- - II.31. New section: No Third-Party Beneficiaries

______________________________________________________
(After all this Legalese, the obvious disclaimer: No guarantee for
nothing; I just hope I caught most of the differences. Minor changes
like "NSI --> Registry Operator" are not included.)

So, copy, paste & comment along!

Best regards,
/// 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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:10:21 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, at 12:33 [=GMT+0100], Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 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.

I would very much like to have as much trust as you seem to
have. There was an ICANN official quoted, saying that present
registrants in ORG could keep their names for another 'cycle',
IIRC. Unfortunately I have no source...

But there is another matter: changing the policy for ORG does affect
present owners, even if they can keep their domains. They will become
relicts. 

From whatever angle we look at it: changing the policy for ORG does
not benefit anyone, except perhaps Verisign, by making a competiting
TLD impotent. There is no need to include a change in ORG's _policy_
in this new deal with Verisign, if that materializes. The ORG policy
can be dealt with, if necessary, on its own merits after looking at
it, discussing it over a longer period. If it is rushed through now,
together with the change in the Verisign contract, it must be for the
benefit of Verisign only.

- -- 
[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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:46:17 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On 2001-03-14 15:09:30 +0100, Marc Schneiders wrote:

>> 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.

> I would very much like to have as much trust as you seem to
> have. 

Well, we all know that ICANN may have screwed up with the new TLDs.

However, there is one thing ICANN has not done so far, and that's to
ruin an existing and well-established TLD.  (I'm leaving the
alternativ dot-biz and other alt.root activities out of the picture
for the moment, because their user base is rather negligible when
compared to the ICANN/DoC root user base.  Please redirect your
flames to the bit sink.)

I believe that ruining or substantially changing a well-established
TLD would be one of the few things ICANN could do in order to
destroy even the strongest belief anyone may have in ICANN's
commitment to guaranteeing the net's stability.  Such a decision
would, basically, ruin the legitimacy of ICANN.

> There was an ICANN official quoted, saying that present
> registrants in ORG could keep their names for another 'cycle',
> IIRC. Unfortunately I have no source...

I'd really like to see that one.

> From whatever angle we look at it: changing the policy for ORG
> does not benefit anyone, except perhaps Verisign, by making a
> competiting TLD impotent.

Well, someone here (it may have been Kent Crispin, I'm not sure)
made an interesting remark on the possibility of a differnet
conflict resolution policy for a non-commercial dot-org.  However,
the point made by some in the public comment forum - namely, that,
in order to try new policies, new TLDs should be introduced - is
still perfectly valid.

- -- 
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 07:20:23 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Chair NOMINATION

Hello Joop,

Wednesday, March 14, 2001, 1:10:17 AM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> 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. 

Yet, the list has not seen or heard from him.  I think list
participation at some level should be mandatory and something we look
at.

> 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.

I see no reason why the two must be so closely tied together, and at
this stage this would amount to a major change in the manner of
election.

This should be tabled for discussion and brought up at another time
when voting methods are open for discussion.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:24:03 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Hello Thomas,

Wednesday, March 14, 2001, 3:33:09 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> 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.

You don't go far enough.

I say that such a major change should NEVER occur, impacting current
or future registrants, after a gTLD has been in operation and use so
long as an unrestricted gTLD.

Chuck has said that this move of .org to a restricted TLD is not a
part of their talks with ICANN. I would be curious to know for certain
who exactly brought it up first.  Such a change would only benefit
Verisign under the new agreements.

There is no reasonable basis for making a change in policy like this
on a gTLD that has been in such wide use already.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:29:14 -0500
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

At 06:15 AM 3/14/2001 -0600, Andy Gardner wrote:

>3. ICANN's answer should be "you waited too long, so the original contract
>stands".
>
>End of story.

I have to say that I agree with Andy and support "option A" - let the 
original contract stand.
What is best for VeriSign's shareholders is not necessarily best for the 
Internet as a whole.

Kendall

- --
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 12:12:44 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

Bruce and all remaining members,
Good idea. It might be useful to uncover priority for debate by listing
clauses in the new contract numerically with tick boxes for
strongly agree/ agree/ neutral/ disagree/ strongly disagree/ would block
contract on the basis of this clause.
Joanna

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Bruce
James
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 7:14 AM
To: [email-masked]; Joop Teernstra
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

- --
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 09:06:12 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 11:29:14AM -0500, Kendall Dawson wrote:
> I have to say that I agree with Andy and support "option A" - let the 
> original contract stand.
> What is best for VeriSign's shareholders is not necessarily best for the 
> Internet as a whole.

Of course.  But you seem to be operating under the assumption that 
the interests of vsgn and the interests of the internet community are 
necessarily contradictory.

This is simply not the case.  The interests of vsgn's stockholders and
the interests of the internet community have a great deal in common,
and there are many possibilities for true win-win results.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:28:42 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

At 9:06 am -0800 3/14/01, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 11:29:14AM -0500, Kendall Dawson wrote:
>> I have to say that I agree with Andy and support "option A" - let the
>> original contract stand.
>> What is best for VeriSign's shareholders is not necessarily best for the
>> Internet as a whole.
>
>Of course.  But you seem to be operating under the assumption that
>the interests of vsgn and the interests of the internet community are
>necessarily contradictory.

>This is simply not the case.  The interests of vsgn's stockholders and
>the interests of the internet community have a great deal in common,
>and there are many possibilities for true win-win results.

If a decent contract could be negotiated , yes. But Verisign's
unwillingness to negotiate - it's either option A or B - negates such a
win-win proposition.

That is, unless you consider the previous "negotiations" involving ICANN
staff and Joe Sims. Joe and ICANN have proved time and time again that
they're light years away from having the Internet Community's best
interests at heart.

And Joe seems so keen to have the new contract accepted. I wonder why?

Verisign stockholder? (Via a trust of course)

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 04:54:31 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Nomination for Chair and Co-Chair

On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:10:17 +1300
Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 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.

Hi Joop & All on the GA List

Thank you for your vote of confidence in nominating me as co-Chair.  For those
who don't know me I am a Director of auDA (the .au ccTLD) and of my own company
Quad Quality Addressing Pty Ltd.  Of course I live in Australia and was most
pleased to welcome those who attended the Melbourne ICANN convention.

During this time I met many people, including many currently on this list, and
say "G'day" to them now.  I hope you all had a safe and pleasant trip home.

I too was very impressed with Danny Younger and found him to be a real
"people person" in his approach.  Calm, good-natured and intelligent.  I'd say
that Danny had exactly the qualities needed for the sensitive position of GA
Chair.  Certainly I'd welcome the opportunity to work with him.

I'd therefore second your nomination for Danny Younger as Chair of GA.

Whilst I agree with your assessment that a 12-hour time zone difference makes
the job easier, I feel the more relevant factor to a ticket-based approach is
the strength of shared commitment between the Chair and Co-Chair.  I believe
that both Danny and I share values and attitudes which combine determination,
vision and sensitivity.

I look forward to working with him for the betterment of ICANN and to the
benefit of our voting constituency. Thank you all.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 07:48:53 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:11:27 +1300, you wrote:
>At 18:33 13/03/01 +1300, DPF wrote:

>>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. 

As much as I personally support (c) I do not think it should be
included as a voting option.  The staff and Verisign have made 100%
clear that it is (A) or (b) only and we risk diluting the results by
having a third option which has been ruled out.  If people do opt for
the status quo then perhaps there may be future opportunities to look
at enhancements but this is unknown.

>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.

Indeed.  It would be very useful for each constituency to take a vote
on which of the two contracts they believes most benefits the Internet
community, as well as the GA taking a vote.

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 13:00:12 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Thomas and all remaining assembly members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> 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.

  Agreed.  But if the ICANN BoD decides to change policy it is not too
difficult to see that the rules for registration in .ORG would
subsequently
change also.  In fact the ICANN BoD has indirectly eluded to this
already.  As such, existing registrants in .ORG and all future
registrants
would be terribly effected, or possibly lose their domain Names in .ORG.

  For this reason, it is my belief that a clause in the new contract
must
contain verbiage that would not allow this to occur, or a moratorium on
registration policy for .ORG be included as part of this contract that
would
be incumbent upon the NEW registry entity for .ORG.

>
>
> --
> 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

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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:41:32 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

As has been made abundently clear many times already, VeriSign is fully
prepared to proceed with the terms of the existing agreement and are ready
to do so.  Option B just presents another choice that wasn't there before.
The fact that there is little time left would be a weak reason to reject
Option B if indeed it was better for ICANN and the Internet community.  It
really shouldn't be that hard in the next two plus weeks to careful evaluate
the merits of B.

Chuck Gomes

- -----Original Message-----
From: Kendall Dawson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 11:29 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

At 06:15 AM 3/14/2001 -0600, Andy Gardner wrote:

>3. ICANN's answer should be "you waited too long, so the original contract
>stands".
>
>End of story.

I have to say that I agree with Andy and support "option A" - let the 
original contract stand.
What is best for VeriSign's shareholders is not necessarily best for the 
Internet as a whole.

Kendall

- --
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 13:15:40 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Vint and all remaining assembly members,

  If what you say is true, Vint.  Than why is it that it is within the
policy guidance of the BoD?   Shouldn't these sorts of decisions
be in part at least, determined by the stakeholders/participants?

  Shouldn't contract changes that have an huge or even a partial
policy implication also require the approval of the Stakeholders?

  Does the MoU and the White Paper mean anything the the ICANN
BoD at this point?  Has it ever?  Will it ever?  When might that be?

vint cerf wrote:

> 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

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 #279
************************