Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #284
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, March 15 2001           Volume 01 : Number 284

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

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 23:39:35 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] straw poll

I have already stated my position on the contract and given one of the reasons
for my thinking.  I will most likely contribute other reasons as the discussion
progresses.  In the Meantime:

I vote for retaining the existing contract.

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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 14:16:26 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Voting methods (Re: [ga] Chair NOMINATION)

<html><DIV>
<P>William,</P></DIV>&gt;Thursday, March 15, 2001, 1:44:51 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; The voting methods are currently open for discussion. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; A vote is to be issued tomorrow. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;And the methods for that vote are already set and have been sent out 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;to the voting registry. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Any changes at this stage would be inappropriate, wouldn't you agree, 
<DIV></DIV>
<P>&gt;Harald? </P>
<P>Harald was probably referring to the fact that the GA Chair election was an item on the agenda in Melbourne, andf therefore the discussion was still open.</P>
<P>Anyway, there has be no comment on the voting proposal sent on the GA List by Harald earlier this month, neither on the list, nor in Melbourne, and therefore I assume that we can safely use that one for the vote.</P>
<P>I am expectng DNSO Sectretariat to send instructions shortly.</P>
<P>Regards</P>
<P>Roberto</P>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><br clear=all><hr>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com">http://www.hotmail.com</a>.<br></p></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: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 00:21:49 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Board Decisions

On Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:41 PM
David Farrar <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I partly agree with you but my worry is that we are signing away *.com
> for ever before we even have any inkling of how successful *.biz and
> other competing TLDs may be.  I would be far less worried by this
> proposal if it came at a stage when the new TLDS had been up and
> operating for 6 - 12 months.

Hi David

Thanks for your analysis.  I was trying to highlight the issues rather than make
a case for Plan A or Plan B.  I just haven't decided yet.

Of course, I agree that 12 months would be a good testing ground.

Actually, I'm not at all convinced that there is no possibility of a Plan C
despite Verisign's denials.  I can think of three possibilities:

(1)    Minor changes.  From the viewpoint of market sensitivity, minor changes
would not impact the value of the share price.  Exactly what are "minor changes"
need to be determined but Verisign would surely agree if the community insisted.

(2)    Changes in Verisign's Favour.  Should the community might make a proposal
that Verisgn considers advances their commercial interests, they would push for
its adoption despite the tight time-frame.  Lawyers would work all night if
needed.

(3)    Subsequent Revision. Whilst difficult, any contract can be renegotiated
during its currency.   Should Plan A be adopted (by default or otherwise) it is
certainly possible that the relevant contract could be revised during its
currency (eg sometime in the next few years) by mutual agreement.

(4)    Shoe on the Other Foot.  Rather than Verisign saying there are two plans,
take it or leave it.  ICANN could reverse the situation saying we will adopt
Plan A now and include an option for Plan B sometime in the next 12 months.  If
you want to switch to Plan B then you must gain the consensus of the DNSO.

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: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 00:33:29 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Policy Post 7.03: ICANN Meets in Melbourne

On Thurs, March 15, 2001 6:33 AM (my local time)
CDT Policy Post <[email-masked]> wrote:
Subject: Policy Post 7.03: ICANN Meets in Melbourne, Considers Public Voice and
New Contracts

CDT POLICY POST Volume 7, Number 3, March 14, 2001

A BRIEFING ON PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES AFFECTING CIVIL LIBERTIES ONLINE
from
THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY

CONTENTS:
(1) SEARCH CONTINUES FOR MEANINGFUL PUBLIC ROLE IN DOMAIN NAME MANAGEMENT
(2) BOARD TO CONSIDER NEW REGISTRY CONTRACTS, POSSIBLE ".ORG" RESTRICTIONS
(3) DISCUSSIONS ON PRIVACY, NEW TOP LEVEL DOMAINS

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

(1) SEARCH CONTINUES FOR MEANINGFUL PUBLIC ROLE IN DOMAIN NAME MANAGEMENT

How can Internet users -- including individuals and small organizations --
have a say in the management of the Internet? Will the Internet's coming
of age as a commercial medium give rise to gatekeepers unresponsive to the
public interest?

The critical challenge of representing the public's voice in Internet
management is posed most immediately today by ICANN, the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the organization that manages
domain names and addressing. Even such technical decisions can have
far-reaching policy implications for free speech and privacy on the
Internet.

This broad issue of the public interest in Internet management has led to
CDT's ongoing participation in ICANN, which concluded its quarterly meeting
early this week in Melbourne, Australia. Major topics of discussion at this
latest meeting included the debate over public participation in ICANN's
board, new proposals for management of the .com/.org/.net domains, and a
range of other issues.

As part of an ongoing effort to study user participation in Internet
management, CDT and a group of international researchers hosted a workshop
in Melbourne on "The Future of the At-Large Membership & Public
Participation in ICANN."

The workshop was convened by the NGO and Academic ICANN Study (NAIS), an
ad hoc collaboration of nine research and advocacy groups from around the
world, including CDT. The workshop discussed a critical debate at ICANN:
The "At-Large" membership and elections for ICANN Directors that many view
as an essential form of public participation in ICANN. NAIS is undertaking
a far-reaching study of public participation in ICANN, and will be making
recommendations regarding the future of ICANN's "At-Large" elections.

More information about the NAIS project is available at:
http://www.naisproject.org/

Parallel to the NAIS effort, ICANN has appointed its own Study Committee
to review the participation of the Internet community "At Large" in ICANN's
decisions. On March 13, the ICANN Board of Directors appointed six new
members to its official effort.

While there has been criticism that the nine-member Study Committee includes
too few advocates for public representation, members of the Committee have
made clear that they intend to rely significantly on input from the Internet
community in developing their recommendations. Several groups, including the
NAIS team, have already announced their intention to provide such input to
the Committee.

The terms of the Study Committee's work include a controversial "clean
sheet" examination of public participation in ICANN -- thus re-opening the
concept of including users in ICANN's decision-making. While such a broad
scope gives the Study Committee flexibility to explore the rationale for
public participation, it also requires advocates for public participation
in ICANN to defend and define that interest vigorously.

In response to a letter from the NAIS group earlier this year, the At Large
Study Committee has released a limited set of aggregate data about last
October's At-Large election. While the data currently available is
inadequate for a rigorous study of the election, CDT views it as a step in
the right direction and hopes that the Study Committee will make further
progress in the near future.

Information about the At-Large Study Committee, including biographies of
its members and copies of the election data already made public, is
available at: http://www.atlargestudy.org/

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

(2) BOARD TO CONSIDER NEW REGISTRY CONTRACTS, POSSIBLE ".ORG" RESTRICTIONS

Opening what could be a contentious debate, the ICANN Board discussed, but
did not take final action, on a proposal to change ICANN's contracts with
VeriSign, the company that manages the master list 'registry' of domain name
registrations for the ".com," ".net," and ".org" top-level domains. Among
other things, the proposal would require Verisign to divest the .net and
.org registries sooner than otherwise expected but give the company a
greater likelihood of retaining the .com registry in the future.

One feature of the new agreements would transfer control of the ".org"
domain to a "sponsoring organization representing non-commercial
organizations." ".org," like ".net" and ".com," is currently open to any
individual, corporation or organization. Under the new proposal, ".org"
could become a closed registry "operated by and for non-profit
organizations." This raises difficult questions: What global definition of
"non-profit" would be imposed on new .org registrants? What organization
would decide and enforce such a policy? CDT fears that this proposal could
ultimately do more harm than good to free expression on the Internet.

One of the Internet's most important features is the absence of gatekeepers
with power to unjustly restrict online speech. Cheap, unfettered access to
domain names empowers Internet users to establish online identities free
from authoritarian interference. A decision by ICANN, however, to require
domain name registrants to prove their standing as non-profit organizations
could deny future registrants access to one of the Internet's longest
standing expressive spaces.

As a rule, CDT believes that unrestricted domain name spaces should play an
important role in the future structure of the DNS. Since restricted spaces
grant certain organizations authority to make binding decisions about who
may or may not speak in a given online space, they are generally
inconsistent with the basic values of openness that have promoted innovation
and expression online. CDT hopes that ICANN will keep this tension in mind
as it moves forward with negotiations for both present and future top-level
domains.

The new contracts sparked intense debate in Melbourne, with comments noting
both benefits -- such as the early recompetition of the .org and .net
spaces -- as well as potential concerns about competition and the process
and speed of the decision. While the Board postponed making a final
decision, existing agreements require a decision by mid-April. In all
likelihood, the ultimate decision will be made on a non-public ICANN Board
teleconference in early April.

A description of the proposed changes is available at:
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm

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

(3) DISCUSSIONS ON PRIVACY, NEW TOP LEVEL DOMAINS

Another pressing issue facing ICANN is the status of the publicly-accessible
databases (so-called "WHOIS" data) of domain name owners' personal or
corporate information. ICANN's contracts with the companies that register
domain names for Internet users obligate the companies to provide free
public access to the technical, administrative, and billing contacts
associated with any domain name in ".com," ".net," and ".org." Such data is
frequently used for technical maintenance of the network, law enforcement,
and other purposes, but the freedom of its availability raises privacy
questions when individuals find their home addresses, e-mail addresses and
phone numbers used inappropriately. ICANN has established a WHOIS Committee
but the absence of a well-defined user advocate makes it likely that broader
policy issues regarding WHOIS will need to be worked out in another forum.
CDT remains confident that processes can be put in place that provide needed
access while preserving individual privacy.

Information on the .com/.net/.org WHOIS Committee is available at:
http://www.icann.org/committees/whois/

The ICANN Board also discussed the state of negotiations between ICANN and
the companies chosen in November 2000 to operate new global top-level
domains (gTLDs) on the Internet. Four of seven negotiations for the new
gTLDs are nearing completion and could begin accepting registrations
relatively soon. Of these four new names -- .pro, .name, .info, and .biz --
only ".info" will be completely unrestricted. Draft versions of the
necessary contracts were presented to the Board, although significant
appendices remain to be released. The Board voted to authorize the ICANN
staff to finalize negotiations and present contracts that would be adopted
absent any further objection from Directors.

Agendas from the Board meeting and public comment forum, with links to the
notes of the real-time scribe and copies of relevant documents, are
available at:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/index.html

CDT's page on domain name issues is http://www.cdt.org/dns/

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

Detailed information about online civil liberties issues may be found at
http://www.cdt.org/.

This document may be redistributed freely in full or linked to
http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_7.03.shtml.

Excerpts may be re-posted with prior permission of [email-masked]

Policy Post 7.03 Copyright 2001 Center for Democracy and Technology

- ---------------------------------------
CDT Policy Post Subscription Information

To subscribe to CDT's Policy Post list, send mail to [email-masked] In
the BODY of the message type "subscribe policy-posts" without the quotes.

To unsubscribe from CDT's Policy Post list, send mail to [email-masked]
In the BODY of the message type "unsubscribe policy-posts" without
the quotes.

Detailed information about online civil liberties issues may be found at
http://www.cdt.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 14:43:12 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

<html><DIV>
<P>Dave,</P></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Ignoring entirely the matter of precise wording, since when does an 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;NSI 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;letter dictate an ICANN decision? 
<DIV></DIV>
<P>&gt; </P>
<P>That's a good question ;&gt;)</P>
<P>Seriously, the letter from Sclavos seems to imply that part of the agreement for .org is the change in its management (see below).</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<P><FONT face=Arial>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. 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. 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. </FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>What puzzles me, is that "ICANN has agreed that..." strictly means that there has been a discussion, if not a negotiation.</P>
<P>Now, were I the Chairman of the ICANN Board, I would have immediately replied to Mr. Sclavos that, even if his proposal is interesting, what ICANN will decide for the future of .org is none of his business.</P>
<P>The fact that I did not see so far neither a formal letter, nor even a statement in Melbourne on the subject, makes me think that ICANN agrees with this approach.</P>
<P>Joe Sims, in fact, presented this as an advantage of the solution "B" (the new contract). And this makes me even more suspicious.</P>
<P>Why should the new .org operator be forced to do what NSI was supposed to do since the beginning, and never did (or at least stopped doing pretty soon) because it was too costly? There must be a reason, methinks.</P>
<P>Is the reason the "pressure from the Internet community to restore the original function of .org"? No way. I believe that that the only sensible thing to do is to let it continue as is. If we really think that a specific TLD has to be reserved to non-commercial organizations, we just have to create one for the specific purpose, instead of redesigning .org.</P>&gt;d/ 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;ps. In any event it would be far more productive to focus on the 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;actual 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;terms and conditions of the proposed changes for NSI, rather than 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;being 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;distracted by decisions that would be made later and not by NSI. 
<DIV></DIV>
<P>&gt; </P>
<P>The fact that the Registry that will inherit .org must be a non-profit is spelled out in 5.1.4.</P>
<P>IANAL, but I believe that if ICANN wants to change this, Verisign may refuse to pay the $5M.</P>
<P>Regards</P>
<P>Roberto</P><?xml:namespace prefix = mailto /><mailto:[email-masked]>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></mailto:[email-masked]><br clear=all><hr>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com">http://www.hotmail.com</a>.<br></p></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 08:59:00 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?

I'm not a contract lawyer, but on first look this appears to an agreement
by which the "operator" pays $5million and ICANN agrees to give .org to a
non-profit.

If ICANN were to give .org to a for-profit, I would guess -- and remember,
I'm a public lawyer not a contract lawyer -- that it would be very
vulnerable to a claim it had forfeited the $5 million and had to return
it.  I don't see that ICANN would liable for further damages for breach of
contract beyond this.

Perhaps Louis Touton could give us his view?

(PS. As a policy matter it is clear why VeriSign would be willing to pay a
lot to ensure that .org was not a competitor.  However, it isn't obvious
to me that this clause perfectly achieves that objective.  That .org is
run by a non-profit does not in principle mean it cannot be a competitor,
since organizational form does not determine registration policy.  One
could imagine a non-profit that ran .com, after all.)

On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> <http://www.icann.org/nsi/proposed-org-registry-agmt-01mar01.htm>:
> 
>         5.1.4 No later than 90 days prior to the Expiration Date,
>         Registry Operator will pay to ICANN or ICANN's designee the
>         sum of US $5 million, to be used by ICANN in it sole
> >       discretion to establish an endowment to be used to fund
>                                vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
> >       future operating costs of the non-profit entity designated
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>         by ICANN as successor operator of the .org registry.
>         Registry Operator agrees that such funds, once paid to
>         ICANN, will become the property of ICANN and/or ICANN's
>         designee, and that Registry Operator will have no ownership
>         or other rights or interests in such funds or in the manner
>         in which they are used or disbursed.
> 
> 
> Maybe some US lawyers here can enlighten us whether or not this
> clause constructs an obligation for ICANN to assign .org to a
> non-profit entity after NSI gives it up?
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's cool here.<--

- --
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 15:15:20 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

<html><DIV>
<P>Joop,</P></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Roberto, as Chair, could you please make a ruling on the voting options at 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;some point during the next week? 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Should option C (re-open negotiations) be included in a single set of 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;options or should it be part of a sub-option that reads: 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;"In case there would a possibility for the Board to re-negotiate the 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Verisign contract then my preference would be 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;A. , B , or C", 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;while the main option reads: "Assuming that no re-negotiations is possible, 
<DIV></DIV>
<P>&gt;my preference is A, or B." ? </P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>I'm not sure why we are all focusing on the vote.</P>
<P>In my vision of things, a vote follows from a debate. We discuss the pros and cons of the proposals, define things that we like/dislike, and then we decide on how to vote.</P>
<P>I tend to think that just a vote (x people for "A", y for "B", ...) will not have weight. Maybe a common argumented position on "why" we like "A" better than "B" would have more impact.</P>
<P>Anyway, for the time being, it seems that some consensus is being expressed on the maintenance of the statu quo. What I would like to bring is an argumented position on "why" we like better this option.</P>
<P>Regards</P>
<P>Roberto</P>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><br clear=all><hr>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com">http://www.hotmail.com</a>.<br></p></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 08:32:13 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA Straw Poll

Thank you all for your input to our "Straw Poll".

I would like remind everyone that a "Straw Poll" is just that.....

    A non-binding feel of the GA and its view of the new contract.

    So far all of the "votes" have been "for" keeping the current contract
in place.

I welcome more "votes" either way:

    1.)  Keep the current VeriSign contract.

    2.)  Agree to the new VeriSign contract.

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 6:39 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] straw poll

I have already stated my position on the contract and given one of the
reasons
for my thinking.  I will most likely contribute other reasons as the
discussion
progresses.  In the Meantime:

I vote for retaining the existing contract.

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

- --
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 16:17:08 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board decisions

Patrick I come back on this. When I read it it upsets me.

On 12:31 15/03/01, Patrick Corliss said:
> > In Melbourne, Joe Sims advised that Verisign was working on the divestiture
> > according to Plan A when they (Verisign) presented another option to ICANN
> > stafff for consideration.  ICANN staff rejected that particular 
> proposal but
> > this opened the door to discussions.

You/we found that sentence a good explanation. But when you conisder it it 
is a shame. Joe Sims (an external consultant) advised you (an @large 
Member,  a stakeholder and a ccTLD Director, Member of the DNSO, Member of 
the WG-Review) that VeriSign presented ICANN (ie BoD, DNSO) a new plan that 
you/we should have considered (but you/we don't even know what was proposed 
yet). Then he tells you/us that he refused it on your/our behalf and 
started new discussions, of which we learn the real nature through a 
semi-public letter from the other party.

Would this happen in my company, I would fire the guy. Would you not in yours?

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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:09:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Straw Poll

On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Bruce James wrote:

>
> I welcome more "votes" either way:
>
>     1.)  Keep the current VeriSign contract.

My "vote" is for 1 as well.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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 17:19:59 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?

Jeff,
I did not dare to propose that idea as it is strictly forbiden
by the bylaws and the White Paper. It is to accuse Joe
Sims, Louis Touton, Mike Roberts and Andrew McLauglin
of felony as the natural consequence is that the 200 millions
are to be used to develop common interests to the iCANN
and VeriSign (who will retain .org operations). This purely
means that Stratton is purchasing the Staff and informing
Vint that iCANN does not exist anymore and he may return
to his WorldCom VP job (hence the address).

This would lead to think that the standard gTLD agreement
has been designed with this plan in view. And we are beyond
the establishment notion detailed by DPF, entering an anti
trust case against VeriSign and a manipulation of the GAC
to cover this (the famous "market monopoly" of Kent Crispin,
corresponding to the "market ownership" of VeriSign on ".com".
Also, this would question the way new TLDs were chosen: on
their intrinsic merits or on their merits according such a plan.
We then undesand why ".museum" is great in bringing
culture departments support and a possible ally due to the
lack of experience and size, but "coop" was poor as being
in a certain way big competition.

This is something again I did not dare to think about. But
now you talk about it, I suppose that a non profit no member
Californian association ".ORG Administration and Services
Management" would not be a big investment for the iCANN.
IANA, ICANN, ORG/ASM, mmmhhh .. interesting trio.

Your idea. Not mine :-)
Jefsey

On 13:48 15/03/01, Jeff Williams said:
>Thomas and all remaining assembly members,
>
>
>   It seems to me that the language here is leaving allot open to
>Consensus determination or some other process by which whom
>will eventually end up with .ORG, should the new "Deal" be
>approved, is not well defined.  I t should be in any GOOD
>Contract of this nature, from what our legal staff is telling
>me.
>
>   Second here, is that it seems to me that ICANN is setting itself
>up to manage .ORG itself.  This would meet the condition of
>a non-profit company managing .ORG.  It also somewhat explains
>the $5m in ICANN's hands and they could do just about anything with
>that money even if another organization is not to become the registry
>for .ORG.  So I would say that ICANN itself will be pocketing the
>$5m for itself and any new registry for .ORG will get nothing or next
>to none of these funds....  In the case that ICANN itself will be the
>registry for .ORG, which is quite conceivable, of course they can than
>justify keeping the $5m to do with as they wish as long as it is for the
>
>.ORG registry of a related function of same....  And as many of you
>know,
>all kinds of games can be played with this; legal consulting fees to
>associate's of Jones & Day, consulting fees to ex-ICANN BoD members
>and staff, and even the justification of creating a CTO position within
>ICANN itself so as to provide a salary for that position to someone that
>
>has been particularly favorable to the ICANN BoD in the past, like
>someone
>with "Operational" experience...  There are several candidates that come
>to mind
>here.  I am sure that many of you know who these people might be as
>well,
>without me naming names....  >;)
>
>   So given the ICANN BoD's track record with handling funding, the
>$5m will not last long even if another non-profit organization is to be
>the NEW Registry for .ORG, and the ICANN BoD determines what
>and how those funds are to be used should this occur.  Kinda slick, huh?
>
>Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > <http://www.icann.org/nsi/proposed-org-registry-agmt-01mar01.htm>:
> >
> >         5.1.4 No later than 90 days prior to the Expiration Date,
> >         Registry Operator will pay to ICANN or ICANN's designee the
> >         sum of US $5 million, to be used by ICANN in it sole
> > >       discretion to establish an endowment to be used to fund
> >                                vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
> > >       future operating costs of the non-profit entity designated
> >                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >         by ICANN as successor operator of the .org registry.
> >         Registry Operator agrees that such funds, once paid to
> >         ICANN, will become the property of ICANN and/or ICANN's
> >         designee, and that Registry Operator will have no ownership
> >         or other rights or interests in such funds or in the manner
> >         in which they are used or disbursed.
> >
> > Maybe some US lawyers here can enlighten us whether or not this
> > clause constructs an obligation for ICANN to assign .org to a
> > non-profit entity after NSI gives it up?
> >
> > --
> > 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

- --
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 08:43:35 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> That .org is run by a non-profit does not in principle mean it cannot be a
> competitor, since organizational form does not determine registration policy.

And vice-versa...that .org is run by a for-profit company does not in
principle mean the company cannot run the TLD in a way that maximizes the
benefit for its customers. If .org has a charter that effectively limits
those customers to non-profits and individuals, say, then there's not much
difference between a for-profit and a non-profit TLD operator.

I can't think of any reason to artificially limit the bidders for .org to
non-profits (other than optics). We ought to open it to anyone who wants to
make a bid and then see what we get.

       -- Bret

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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:21:52 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Abuse complaint [Dave Crocker] - Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Hi William:

I have to agree with you.  As much as I may disagree with Dave, 
his opinions are as  personally valid as anyone's else's and he has 
the right to voice them.  If he attacks an individual on a personal 
basis, he will have violated the rules of civil discourse.  In this case, 
he has voiced is disappointment in everyone on the list for not 
seeing things his way.

Perhaps he understands how we all feel when the ICANN board 
totally ignores the Internet community as a whole and forges ahead 
with their decisions in favor of special interests.  In this case, 
however, it is the community that is speaking against those very 
decisions and Dave is speaking in favor of the Board.

There is nothing out of line in thinking you are right and others are 
wrong, nor is there anything wrong with voicing that thought or 
sounding disappointed or petulant.

I don't see that Dave has violated list rules and see no reason for 
his being sanctioned by the list moderator.  I am also sure he 
understands the sentiment behind the request.

Leah

> Hello Joanna,
> 
> Wednesday, March 14, 2001, 10:46:26 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
> > Seconded.
> > Joanna
> 
> >   I believe that Dave Crocker's remarks are of an extremely abusive
> > nature and towards everyone on this forum.  I respectfully request
> > that either Mr. Crocker publicly apologize to the participants of
> > this forum forth with, or be disciplined under the Rules of this
> > forum as soon as possible.
> 
> No, this is beyond the bounds of the rules, and is not an appropriate
> application of them.
> 
> Save the rules violation reports for serious violations.  I suggest
> reading them for more clarification.
> 
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules-v0.2.html
> I post them here for your reference:
> 
> The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
> The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
> Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
> Not using offensive language
> 
> 
> I also consider it inappropriate to CC such complaints to the public
> list, as it encouraged abusive threads of people who do not like a
> particular person or their position to jump on the bandwagon, which is
> what was the intent of the original complainant on this thread, btw.
> 
> -- 
> 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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:10:49 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA Straw Poll

I will always defer to the Chair.

I now call for the Chair to conduct a "Straw Poll", and save us all a lot of
time.

I am sorry you do not like a "Straw Poll". I have found it VERY useful in
finding how everyone feels on a given "vote" to come, AND does save a great
deal of time for all involved.

I sit on 5 Boards and we do this quite often.

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Geurs Dave-xdat11" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Bruce James'" <[email-masked]>; "'[GA]'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Geurs Dave-xdat11" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:39 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] GA Straw Poll

Bruce,

I do not believe in "straw polls" called by people other than the chair.  If
you want to have a straw poll, put it up to the chair.  Otherwise it is a
wasted execise.  The chair is there to do these things.  Use the structure.

Dave

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bruce James [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:32 AM
To: [GA]
Subject: [ga] GA Straw Poll

Thank you all for your input to our "Straw Poll".

I would like remind everyone that a "Straw Poll" is just that.....

    A non-binding feel of the GA and its view of the new contract.

    So far all of the "votes" have been "for" keeping the current contract
in place.

I welcome more "votes" either way:

    1.)  Keep the current VeriSign contract.

    2.)  Agree to the new VeriSign contract.

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 6:39 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] straw poll

I have already stated my position on the contract and given one of the
reasons
for my thinking.  I will most likely contribute other reasons as the
discussion
progresses.  In the Meantime:

I vote for retaining the existing contract.

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

- --
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: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 04:41:54 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Straw Poll

> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Bruce James wrote:
> > I welcome more "votes" either way:

Straw poll.   Vote 1.

Why?   Registrar & Registry separation..

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #284
************************