Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #281
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, March 15 2001           Volume 01 : Number 281

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

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 00:34:09 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] .ORG Names

On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, at 14:28 [=GMT-0800], Kent Crispin wrote:

> The sound and fury over the possibility of changes to the .org charter
> comes from the ICANN staff's announcement at
> http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm,
> where the future of .org is described as finding an appropriate
> sponsoring agency to turn it over to.  However, 1) this description is
> preceeded by the very important caveat "through some procedure yet to be
> determined"; and 2) this description is a high level summary in document
> that is basically a call for discussion.  I'm quite sure that the staff
> wishes in hindsight that they hadn't been so creative there (personally
> I believe that the document was prepared in a tremendous last-minute
> rush), but the fact is that the legal documents themselves contain
> absolutely no presumption about how .org should be managed. 

It would be great and very helpful for the further discussion, if
ICANN would send out something reassuring about this. Say a *clear*
message from the chairman?

- -- 
[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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:43:21 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

At 07:48 15/03/01 +1300, DPF wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:11:27 +1300, you wrote:
>>At 18:33 13/03/01 +1300, DPF wrote:

>>
>>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.
>

As Dave Crocker said in Melbourne: both contracts have their drawbacks
("suck") 
Many of us here may share that opinion.

I see DFP's point, but I still think that an overwhelming desire emanating
from the GA or the constituencies to let "their" ICANN Board attempt to
renegotiate the deal should be conveyed as part of the information that
goes to the Board, even if it is probably not going to fly.

Roberto, as Chair, could you please make a ruling on the voting options at
some point during the next week?

Should option C (re-open negotiations) be included in a single set of
options or should it be part of a sub-option that reads: 
"In case there would a possibility for the Board to re-negotiate the
Verisign contract then my preference would be 
A. , B ,  or C",
while the main option reads: "Assuming that no re-negotiations is possible,
my preference is A,  or B." ?

>>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.
>
The NCDNHC is already gearing up for a vote, I understand.

For the constituencies present in the GA it would be possible to enter
voting options as specifically intended for each constituency voter.
Like: "I(S)P constituency vote here" , "registrar constituency vote here",
etc.

With web-based voting this can be easily done. In this way, the GA can take
the lead, for the benefit of some constituencies that may not get their act
together in time.

- --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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:22:59 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Chair NOMINATION

At 07:20 14/03/01 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:

>> 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.
>
Danny's efforts were focused where they could be of use.
Danny Younger's participation on the WG-review has been of a very
constructive nature as is evidenced by the archives of that list.
I would venture that he has put more WORK and less blah than any other
participant, culminating in a very comprehensive 75 page report on the
"constituency reform" debate that has been posted here on the icann site
http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3AA2E47100000022

He can be seen speaking on the archived video of the Melbourne GA proceedings.

- --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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 00:51:39 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ORG Names

- --=====================_37081346==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

On 22:11 14/03/01, Kendall Dawson said:
>At 11:05 AM 3/15/2001 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>They are not considering such a change.
>>Yes, the proposal contains some language that can be misinterpreted that 
>>way, but no one is going to get their .org name taken away because they 
>>are not a non-profit.
>>d/
>Do you have any evidence to back this statement up?
>-- Kendall

Dear Dave,
one is always betrayed by his friend.
What is interesting is that the real boss of the ICANN is ...
http://www.icann.org/nsi/sclavos-letter-28feb01.htm
Stratton Clavos, President and CEO of VeriSign

What he says is what I say, not what you want to make us believe. I quote 
and comment:

<quote>
Feb. 28, 2001
Dr. Vinton G. Cerf
Senior Vice President, Internet Architecture and Technology
WorldCom
Mail Stop F2 4-115
22001 Loudoun County Parkway
Ashburn, Virginia 20147
Re: .Com, .Net and .Org Agreements
Dear Vint:
<unquote>

Interesting to note that President and CEO Stratton Clavos writes to 
WorldCom, VP and not to ICANN, Chair. Tells a lot about the real dependance 
of ICANN.

<snip>

<quote>
We would agree to terminate our operation of the registry for .org on 
December 31, 2002 and to cooperate with ICANN in transitioning .org to 
management by a new, non-profit organization representing the global 
universe of non-profit organizations.
<unquote>

To cooperate with iCANN seems OK.
If the "new, non-profit org...  tions" is a quote of a demand of the iCANN 
this is OK. But it seems that NSI which decided to open ".org" a few years 
ago, is here deciding to close it to reduce competition to ".com" and ".info".

<quote>
Among the issues to be determined in this transition is whether .org should 
be limited to registrations only by non-commercial entities, and if so, 
what transition arrangements need to be established for those existing 
registrants that would not qualify under that limitation.
<unquote>

This seems acceptable since VeriSign is to manage until the end of 2002. 
Except that Stratton knows the ICANN bylaws and knows that these matters 
can only be decided as part of a consensus or of an emergency procedure. 
There is no notion of emegency in this text. It seems the consensus is to 
do as if iCANN had the power (or the duty?) to proceed aside of its bylaws, 
DNSO etc...

<quote>
ICANN has agreed that, at a minimum, existing registrants would be 
permitted to remain in the new .org registry for one renewal cycle under 
its new management. In addition, and as another part of the transition 
process, all ICANN-accredited registrars would continue to be permitted to 
register qualifying names in the .org TLD for three years after termination 
of our operation of the .org registry, during which period the new registry 
could develop whatever registration policies for the future it thought 
appropriate.
<unquote>

It seems that the minimum of one year is imposed by NSI, the protection of 
the Registrars too?
as if it was against the position of the iCANN?
But who is the iCANN since the letter is sent to Vint: Vint, BoD, Louis, 
Joe, Mike?

<quote>
Our objective is to provide a permanent and affordable home on the Internet 
for the non-profit sector and in so doing make a major effort to close the 
digital divide on a worldwide scale.
<unquote>

This looks odd. It look like if Stratton was really one of us, trying to 
impose the iCANN a position we would have defended. Or doing his job, 
playing on common sense to defend his business interests?

a) it really shows iCANN is protecting nobody's interest but of a few Staff 
people.
b) that decisions are taken by Stratton. He says VeriSign's objectives are 
to provide ... He does not says that VeriSign supports iCANN's objectives.
c) this rings strange to me. It is like if Stratton was informing VP Cerf 
that Staff had agreed.

<quote>
To see this through, we also would agree to support the new non-profit .org 
registry operator, and provide it with a contribution of $5 million that 
would be used for an endowment to help cover its operating expenses. 
Further, we also agree to make available to the party designated by ICANN 
as successor operator of the .org registry the use of global resolution and 
distribution facilities at no charge for one year.
<unquote>

Seems that ".org" is quite a competition to ".info"! Several millions of 
dollars to get rid of it !
How do you want Vint to resist. The world is fighting iCANN for a few times 
$ 50.000. What would the world say if they known Vint has refused millions 
and millions given to the developping countries and UN...

IMHO conclusions seem to be:

1. Stratton Clavos believes he his the boss

2. the .org DN holders are under this plan given one year by NSI generosity 
before being politically incorrect, taking DNs out of the mouth of starving 
countries. Good commercial image for them.... Thx! And that they have iCANN 
AND VeriSign against them...

3. Clint is cute: he put that letter in the icann.org archives (it should 
be in WorldCom's") so we may see it and better understand. You may recall 
the letter of Esther Dyson to Ralph Nader. Welcome in the Club Vint.

4. McLauglin is quite slow infomed and Joe Sims is suffering Elseihmer. 
Stratton's letter is a fax of Feb 28th. The mails from Joe Sims and Andy 
from March 5. Even in 2001 it makes 6 days. They say that what Stratton 
writes to Vint is "misreporting & hyperventilation about domain name stuff".

Interesting reading anyway.
Jefsey

- --=====================_37081346==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<br>
On 22:11 14/03/01, Kendall Dawson said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>At 11:05 AM 3/15/2001 -0800, Dave
Crocker wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>They are not considering such a
change.<br>
Yes, the proposal contains some language that can be misinterpreted that
way, but no one is going to get their .org name taken away because they
are not a non-profit.<br>
d/</blockquote>Do you have any evidence to back this statement up?<br>
- -- Kendall</blockquote><br>
Dear Dave,<br>
one is always betrayed by his friend. <br>
What is interesting is that the real boss of the ICANN is ... <br>
<a href="http://www.icann.org/nsi/sclavos-letter-28feb01.htm" eudora="autourl">http://www.icann.org/nsi/sclavos-letter-28feb01.htm</a><br>
Stratton Clavos, President and CEO of VeriSign<br>
<br>
What he says is what I say, not what you want to make us believe. I quote
and comment:<br>
<br>
<br>
&lt;quote&gt;<br>
Feb. 28, 2001<br>
Dr. Vinton G. Cerf<br>
Senior Vice President, Internet Architecture and Technology<br>
WorldCom<br>
Mail Stop F2 4-115<br>
22001 Loudoun County Parkway<br>
Ashburn, Virginia 20147<br>
<u>Re: .Com, .Net and .Org Agreements<br>
</u>Dear Vint:<br>
&lt;unquote&gt;<br>
<br>
Interesting to note that President and CEO Stratton Clavos writes to
WorldCom, VP and not to ICANN, Chair. Tells a lot about the real
dependance of ICANN.<br>
<br>
<br>
&lt;snip&gt;<br>
<br>
<br>
&lt;quote&gt;<br>
We would agree to terminate our operation of the registry for .org on
December 31, 2002 and to cooperate with ICANN in transitioning .org to
management by a new, non-profit organization representing the global
universe of non-profit organizations. <br>
&lt;unquote&gt;<br>
<br>
To cooperate with iCANN seems OK.<br>
If the &quot;new, non-profit org...&nbsp; tions&quot; is a quote of a
demand of the iCANN this is OK. But it seems that NSI which decided to
open &quot;.org&quot; a few years ago, is here deciding to close it to
reduce competition to &quot;.com&quot; and &quot;.info&quot;. <br>
<br>
<br>
&lt;quote&gt;<br>
Among the issues to be determined in this transition is whether .org
should be limited to registrations only by non-commercial entities, and
if so, what transition arrangements need to be established for those
existing registrants that would not qualify under that limitation. <br>
&lt;unquote&gt;<br>
<br>
This seems acceptable since VeriSign is to manage until the end of 2002.
Except that Stratton knows the ICANN bylaws and knows that these matters
can only be decided as part of a consensus or of an emergency procedure.
There is no notion of emegency in this text. It seems the consensus is to
do as if iCANN had the power (or the duty?) to proceed aside of its
bylaws, DNSO etc... <br>
<br>
<br>
&lt;quote&gt;<br>
ICANN has agreed that, at a minimum, existing registrants would be
permitted to remain in the new .org registry for one renewal cycle under
its new management. In addition, and as another part of the transition
process, all ICANN-accredited registrars would continue to be permitted
to register qualifying names in the .org TLD for three years after
termination of our operation of the .org registry, during which period
the new registry could develop whatever registration policies for the
future it thought appropriate. <br>
&lt;unquote&gt;<br>
<br>
It seems that the minimum of one year is imposed by NSI, the protection
of the Registrars too? <br>
as if it was against the position of the iCANN?<br>
But who is the iCANN since the letter is sent to Vint: Vint, BoD, Louis,
Joe, Mike? <br>
<br>
&lt;quote&gt;<br>
Our objective is to provide a permanent and affordable home on the
Internet for the non-profit sector and in so doing make a major effort to
close the digital divide on a worldwide scale. <br>
&lt;unquote&gt;<br>
<br>
This looks odd. It look like if Stratton was really one of us, trying to
impose the iCANN a position we would have defended. Or doing his job,
playing on common sense to defend his business interests? <br>
<br>
a) it really shows iCANN is protecting nobody's interest but of a few
Staff people.<br>
b) that decisions are taken by Stratton. He says VeriSign's objectives
are to provide ... He does not says that VeriSign supports iCANN's
objectives.<br>
c) this rings strange to me. It is like if Stratton was informing VP Cerf
that Staff had agreed.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
&lt;quote&gt;<br>
To see this through, we also would agree to support the new non-profit
.org registry operator, and provide it with a contribution of $5 million
that would be used for an endowment to help cover its operating expenses.
Further, we also agree to make available to the party designated by ICANN
as successor operator of the .org registry the use of global resolution
and distribution facilities at no charge for one year.<br>
&lt;unquote&gt;<br>
<br>
Seems that &quot;.org&quot; is quite a competition to &quot;.info&quot;!
Several millions of dollars to get rid of it !<br>
How do you want Vint to resist. The world is fighting iCANN for a few
times $ 50.000. What would the world say if they known Vint has refused
millions and millions given to the developping countries and UN...<br>
<br>
IMHO conclusions seem to be:<br>
<br>
1. Stratton Clavos believes he his the boss<br>
<br>
2. the .org DN holders are under this plan given one year by NSI
generosity before being politically incorrect, taking DNs out of the
mouth of starving countries. Good commercial image for them.... Thx! And
that they have iCANN AND VeriSign against them...<br>
<br>
3. Clint is cute: he put that letter in the icann.org archives (it should
be in WorldCom's&quot;) so we may see it and better understand. You may
recall the letter of Esther Dyson to Ralph Nader. Welcome in the Club
Vint. <br>
<br>
4. McLauglin is quite slow infomed and Joe Sims is suffering Elseihmer.
Stratton's letter is a fax of Feb 28th. The mails from Joe Sims and Andy
from March 5. Even in 2001 it makes 6 days. They say that what Stratton
writes to Vint is &quot;misreporting &amp; hyperventilation about domain
name stuff&quot;.<br>
<br>
Interesting reading anyway.<br>
Jefsey<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</html>

- --=====================_37081346==_.ALT--

- --
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 18:14:17 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ORG Names

Kent and all remaining assembly members,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 04:11:26PM -0500, Kendall Dawson wrote:
> > At 11:05 AM 3/15/2001 -0800, you wrote:
> > >They are not considering such a change.
> > >
> > >Yes, the proposal contains some language that can be misinterpreted that
> > >way, but no one is going to get their .org name taken away because they
> > >are not a non-profit.
> > >
> > >d/
> >
> >
> > Do you have any evidence to back this statement up?
>
> See Louis Touton's letter to the Names Council,
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00899.html:
>
>     The only substantive "policy" issue (of the type to be referred to
>     a Supporting Organization under the bylaws) that appears to be
>     raised by the proposed revisions is the future restrictions (if any)
>     on .org, but if the VeriSign proposal is accepted that will in fact
>     be the subject of ICANN process, including the DNSO, over the next
>     year, and it does not require any action at this time.

  This is a nice prepared political statement, that basically says nearly
nothing and does not directly address the status of .ORG should it
be spun off or be under the management of a new registry.  Hence
such a statement is of little value, and does not address the issue
of .ORG in advance of any new registry managing .ORG in the potential
future.  That simply is not adequate....

>
>
> Louis' preceeding letter,
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00894.html, explains
> very succinctly why the agreements themselves do not involve
> substantive policy changes:

  In Louis's opinion of course...  Well that is all well and fine, but I for
one am not buying into it.  It seems that many others are not as well...

>
>
>     There are a variety of changes between the existing registry
>     agreement and the three proposed ones, but they either (a) are not
>     matters of policy (trimming back the .net extension from November
>     2007 to January 2006 is an example of this); (b) involve the
>     continuation of present policy (allowing the continued common
>     ownership, with strict operational separation, is an example of
>     this); or (c) simply bring VeriSign into line with the policies that
>     were developed as a result of the new TLD program, which was
>     initially considered in the DNSO (the conformance of the proposed
>     .net and .org agreements to the new TLD template is an example of
>     this).
>
> The sound and fury over the possibility of changes to the .org charter
> comes from the ICANN staff's announcement at
> http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm,
> where the future of .org is described as finding an appropriate
> sponsoring agency to turn it over to.  However, 1) this description is
> preceeded by the very important caveat "through some procedure yet to be
> determined"; and 2) this description is a high level summary in document
> that is basically a call for discussion.  I'm quite sure that the staff
> wishes in hindsight that they hadn't been so creative there (personally
> I believe that the document was prepared in a tremendous last-minute
> rush), but the fact is that the legal documents themselves contain
> absolutely no presumption about how .org should be managed.

  ANd this is where the "Rub" is, isn't it...  the ICANN BoD has to a great
degree taken it's lead from their staff before any review process, and
sometimes
despite any review process from the DNSO GA, the DNSO Constituencies, as
well as the @large membership, can be done.

>
>
> --
> 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

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 19:10:07 -0500
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ORG Names

At 02:28 PM 3/14/2001 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:

>this description is preceeded by the very important caveat "through some 
>procedure yet to be determined";

Usually this equates to a closed-door meeting of the board. If the 
remaining 4 board seats were filled by elected representatives I would not 
have a problem with it. But, the thing that scares me is that they left it 
so open-ended.  The standard operating procedure up to this point is for 
'staff' (Joe Sims and Louis Touton) to make the deal and then have the 
board approve them in a tele-conference.  (which are still being held in 
secret!)

What assurance do we, as individuals, get from ICANN that this "procedure 
yet to be determined" will include the .ORG domain name holders?

- -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 16:06:53 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ORG Names

On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 12:33:27AM +0100, Marc Schneiders wrote:
[...]
> > I believe that the document was prepared in a tremendous last-minute
> > rush), but the fact is that the legal documents themselves contain
> > absolutely no presumption about how .org should be managed. 
> 
> It would be great and very helpful for the further discussion, if
> ICANN would send out something reassuring about this. Say a *clear*
> message from the chairman? 

The discussion on the names council list from Touton and Sims is very
clear indeed.

More important, "assurances" are a red herring and a rathole and a 
crutch.  What matters is what's in the documents.

- -- 
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 19:24:24 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Straw Poll

Keep the original contract.

Leah
- --
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 18:05:43 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] straw poll

My vote is for number 1:

Keep the current VeriSign contract.

/Bruce James

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Kendall Dawson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 4:51 PM
Subject: [ga] straw poll

My vote is for number 1:

Keep the current VeriSign contract

Kendall

Bruce James wrote:
- --------------------------------------------------
>>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

- --
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 17:05:00 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Straw Poll

Wednesday, March 14, 2001, 4:24:24 PM, JandL wrote:

> Keep the original contract.

I agree.  I see no appreciable benefit to the internet community, and
in fact see the new contract opening the door to changes in policy
that I think would have a negative impact on the internet community.

- -- 
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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:16:10 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] .ORG Names

On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, at 16:06 [=GMT-0800], Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 12:33:27AM +0100, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> [...]
> > > I believe that the document was prepared in a tremendous last-minute
> > > rush), but the fact is that the legal documents themselves contain
> > > absolutely no presumption about how .org should be managed. 
> > 
> > It would be great and very helpful for the further discussion, if
> > ICANN would send out something reassuring about this. Say a *clear*
> > message from the chairman? 
> 
> The discussion on the names council list from Touton and Sims is very
> clear indeed.
> 
> More important, "assurances" are a red herring and a rathole and a 
> crutch.  What matters is what's in the documents.

Like this, you mean?

"ICANN has agreed that, at a minimum, existing registrants would be
permitted to remain in the new .org registry for one renewal cycle
under its new management." 
(http://www.icann.org/nsi/sclavos-letter-28feb01.htm)

This letter makes clearer than all subsequent discussion, what is
happening. NSI/Verisign wants an impotent ORG. Naturally we are left
in the dark as much as possible, until the deal is done. And then
Verisign can on the basis of the document cited above (published on
ICANN's website), demand that ORG will be made into something that
will not harm Verisign's business. How very clever. I do not buy it.

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

> 
> -- 
> 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
> 

- --
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 02:28:08 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] straw poll

On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, at 18:05 [=GMT-0600], Bruce James wrote:

> My vote is for number 1:
> 
> Keep the current VeriSign contract.

My vote is also for number 1. 

- ---

And maybe the ORG domain name holders should organize? If a few others
feel that too, we might collect signatures (by email) to a simple
statement (prefarably written by a native speaker of English :-),
saying, e.g. that we do not accept any changes in ORG policy.

- -- 
[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 19:52:57 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] straw poll

At 2:28 am +0100 3/15/01, [email-masked] wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, at 18:05 [=GMT-0600], Bruce James wrote:
>
>> My vote is for number 1:
>>
>> Keep the current VeriSign contract.
>
>My vote is also for number 1.

My vote is also for number 1.
- -- 
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 21:06:15 -0500
From: Dale Farmer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Straw Poll

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Wednesday, March 14, 2001, 4:24:24 PM, JandL wrote:
>
> > Keep the original contract.

    I see nothing in the new contract that is worth giving up the
principle of separating the registry.  Keep the original one.

    --Dale Farmer

- --
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 18:06:23 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

At 01:55 AM 3/14/2001, DPF wrote:
>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.

Indeed, the purpose of floating this particular, inventive interpretation 
is exactly so that people will be scared.

Being scared is so much easier than focusing on the facts and actual merits 
(and actual deficiencies) of the alternative contract.

d/

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:18:56 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

This exchange is an excellent example of pronouncements issued with no 
concern at all about the merits of an issue.

Let's just treat ICANN as a set of abstractions and to hell with any real 
concern for benefits or detriments.

Thanks, folks, for such responsible participation.

d/

At 08:29 AM 3/14/2001, Kendall Dawson wrote:
>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.

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:46:29 -0800
From: [email-masked] (PMIW,  Ken Stoen)
Subject: RE: [ga] straw poll

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Bruce
>James
>Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 4:06 PM

Subject: Re: [ga] straw poll

My vote is for number 1:

Keep the current VeriSign contract.

 Ken Stoen

snip:
>Bruce James wrote:
>--------------------------------------------------
>>>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
>
>--
>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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #281
************************