Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #286
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, March 16 2001            Volume 01 : Number 286

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

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:39:55 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

Hello Peter,

Thursday, March 15, 2001, 12:58:50 PM, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> My "vote" is for the "straw poll" of "Status Quo" or "New Deal", at least in
> the first pass. at the moment, there is little to indicate there will be or
> could be further negotiation.

> Comments and suggestions leading to "renegotiation option" are unrealistic,
> and will dilute our ability to get a first-pass reading on the popularity of
> the 2 options on the table now.

I agree with Peter.  The sense of the GA needs to be clear, either
way, anything that adds ambiguity to that could be used to discount
the results here.

- -- 
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 15:52:10 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board decisions - Verisign contract and $200M post offer...

Chuck and all remaining assembly members,

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> VeriSign proposed the idea of committing to an investment of $200m over 10
> years if the agreement was successfully renegotiated.

  My first comment here and one that is shared with most of our members
as well is, "Lets see ghe color of Verisigns Money on this one".  Has
Verisign put up any earnest moneys related to this $200m in this context
to date?  If not, than this financial consideration is just talk...

  $200M is not a small amount of money, even for verisign.  And a long
term commitment of $200m over 10 years, is $20m per year.  Lets see
the first $20m in a joint Escrow account.

  Our members and our CFO suggested to me, and I agree that this proposed
$200M should be put in a trust account where the terms of the trust specify
very specifically how this money can be used..   I think this should also
be outlined in the New contract.  Otherwise this proposed $200M over
10 years would just be a big slush fund and it's use could be for just
about anything.   Looks more like a bribe than anything else at this
point....

> ICANN then proposed
> new terms and negotiations started.  Recognizing that I was not directly
> involved in the negotiations, it appears to me that the terms proposed by
> ICANN were basically the terms in the new gTLD agreements.  I conclude this
> because the new .net and .org agreements are almost identical to the new
> gTLD agreements.

  I don't think this is all that important or even all that relevant...
Different
contracts with different terms for TLD's should not be a consideration...

>
>
> So the short answer is: ICANN proposed the terms of the new agreement after
> VeriSign suggested the possibility of the investment.  Joe Sims confirmed
> this in Melbourne.

  I am sure Joe Sims eyes lit up when he first heard of the $200M!  >;)
That kind of money tends to be a very persuasive influence, to be sure...

>
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:04 AM
> To: Bruce James; Gomes, Chuck; 'Andy Gardner'; vint cerf; Roberto
> Gaetano; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board decisions
>
> >>>Keep in mind, we were pursuing a path of complying with the existing
> agreement and were very close to finalizing tasks related to that.
>
> Chuck Gomes<<
>
> Hello Chuck,
> This new contract did not present itself. Somebody proposed it. Who was that
> exactly ?
> Joanna
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> 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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:17:17 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> I'm not sure why we are all focusing on the vote.
> 
> 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.

In mine, the debate and any consensus it may reach are the important thing.
At most, a vote is a straw poll, an input to discussion. It is never, on its own,
a decision-making mechanism.
- --
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 18:47:27 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

WXW, Peter and all remaining assembly members,

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Peter,
>
> Thursday, March 15, 2001, 12:58:50 PM, Peter de Blanc wrote:
>
> > My "vote" is for the "straw poll" of "Status Quo" or "New Deal", at least in
> > the first pass. at the moment, there is little to indicate there will be or
> > could be further negotiation.

  This is fine Peter, however it think that the GA has an obligation to at least
consider other options that might make  the "New Deal" a better choice
and still satisfy the ICANN BoD and verisign, while at the same time
address some of the concerns that have been expressed with the "New
Deal" contract that will have long standing implications...

>
>
> > Comments and suggestions leading to "renegotiation option" are unrealistic,
> > and will dilute our ability to get a first-pass reading on the popularity of
> > the 2 options on the table now.

  Ok...  However if this is to be the way we vote, than we are limiting our
options, and maybe sending the wrong signal to the ICANN BoD.  Showing
that there is a potential third option, might get this situation either extended,
or at least begin to indicate that the "New Deal" is expectable, but with
conditions, which would require a modification the the "New Deal"
contract....

>
>
> I agree with Peter.  The sense of the GA needs to be clear, either
> way, anything that adds ambiguity to that could be used to discount
> the results here.

  WXW, I don't see any potential of ambiguity regardless of the options
that are or could be available.  What should be paramount is that the
DNSO GA send a clear and exacting signal or message to the ICANN
BoD.  That can take more than just two options choices....

Regards,

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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 23:15:21 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA Straw Poll

I also vote for Option 1- status quo.  

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 07:57:20 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Straw Poll

<html><DIV>
<P>GA members,</P>
<P>Please continue expressing your preference on the question raised by Bruce: this straw poll has the endorsement of the Chair, as requested by Dave (see below).</P>
<P>As I started already counting, those who have already answered need not repeat the "show of hand". Of course, it will be good if others are counting as well, just in case I miss somebody.</P>
<P>Regards</P>
<P>Roberto</P>
<P>P.S.: I still think that this exercise has to be complemented by a document that explains the reasons for the choice - I am also keeping track of the argumentations so far, and will try to summarize sometimes next week.<BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>&gt;From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Reply-To: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
<DIV></DIV>&gt;To: "[GA]" <[email-masked]>, Geurs Dave-xdat11 <[email-masked]>
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Subject: [ga] GA Straw Poll 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:10:49 -0600 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;I will always defer to the Chair. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;I now call for the Chair to conduct a "Straw Poll", and save us all a lot of 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;time. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;I am sorry you do not like a "Straw Poll". I have found it VERY useful in 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;finding how everyone feels on a given "vote" to come, AND does save a great 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;deal of time for all involved. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;I sit on 5 Boards and we do this quite often. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;/Bruce 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;----- Original Message ----- 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;From: "Geurs Dave-xdat11" <[email-masked]>
<DIV></DIV>&gt;To: "'Bruce James'" <[email-masked]>; "'[GA]'" <[email-masked]>
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Cc: "Geurs Dave-xdat11" <[email-masked]>
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:39 AM 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Subject: RE: [ga] GA Straw Poll 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Bruce, 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;I do not believe in "straw polls" called by people other than the chair. If 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;you want to have a straw poll, put it up to the chair. Otherwise it is a 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;wasted execise. The chair is there to do these things. Use the structure. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Dave 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;-----Original Message----- 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;From: Bruce James [mailto:[email-masked]] 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:32 AM 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;To: [GA] 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Subject: [ga] GA Straw Poll 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Thank you all for your input to our "Straw Poll". 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;I would like remind everyone that a "Straw Poll" is just that..... 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; A non-binding feel of the GA and its view of the new contract. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; So far all of the "votes" have been "for" keeping the current contract 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;in place. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;I welcome more "votes" either way: 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 1.) Keep the current VeriSign contract. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 2.) Agree to the new VeriSign contract. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;/Bruce 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;----- Original Message ----- 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
<DIV></DIV>&gt;To: <[email-masked]>
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 6:39 AM 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Subject: RE: [ga] straw poll 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;I have already stated my position on the contract and given one of the 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;reasons 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;for my thinking. I will most likely contribute other reasons as the 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;discussion 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;progresses. In the Meantime: 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;I vote for retaining the existing contract. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Darryl (Dassa) Lynch. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;-- 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message). 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;-- 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message). 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;-- 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message). 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></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 18:12:15 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|> Jonathan Weinberg
|> Sent: Friday, 16 March 2001 4:41 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?

<<SNIP>>
|> On the other hand, I think the recent furor over .org
|> demonstrates that the Internet community would not be willing to see ICANN
|> delegate significant policy authority over .org to any new body; rather, if
|> restrictions are to be placed on registration on .org, they should be
|> imposed by ICANN itself, in full public view and with the benefit of public
|> comment.  And it is not an easy thing (as the DNSO itself demonstrates) to
|> simply create a new, well-functioning, representative organization whenever
|> ICANN staff think it would be convenient to have one.

I haven't seen any "furor" over who takes over the Registry on .org, that is an
unknown at this stage.  The only complaints I have seen revolve around the idea
of those already holding registrations in .org may be asked to give up their
domain names if their organisation doesn't fit into some yet to be defined
criteria.

Personally, I would like to see all the TLD Registries operated by non-profit
organisations, preferably international in scope of membership.  I want to only
see commercial interests involved at the Registrar level.  I do not like the
idea of Internet resources being so predominately in the hands of commercial
companies, especially ones that are localised to particular regions.  ICANN was
formed to manage all, why not form other non-profits to manage the TLDs?

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: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 00:00:09 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?

Hello Dassa,

Thursday, March 15, 2001, 11:12:15 PM, Dassa wrote:

|>> -----Original Message-----
|>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|>> Jonathan Weinberg
|>> Sent: Friday, 16 March 2001 4:41 AM
|>> To: [email-masked]
|>> Subject: Re: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?

> <<SNIP>>
|>> On the other hand, I think the recent furor over .org
|>> demonstrates that the Internet community would not be willing to see ICANN
|>> delegate significant policy authority over .org to any new body; rather, if
|>> restrictions are to be placed on registration on .org, they should be
|>> imposed by ICANN itself, in full public view and with the benefit of public
|>> comment.  And it is not an easy thing (as the DNSO itself demonstrates) to
|>> simply create a new, well-functioning, representative organization whenever
|>> ICANN staff think it would be convenient to have one.

> I haven't seen any "furor" over who takes over the Registry on .org, that is an
> unknown at this stage.  The only complaints I have seen revolve around the idea
> of those already holding registrations in .org may be asked to give up their
> domain names if their organisation doesn't fit into some yet to be defined
> criteria.

Most of the criticism I have seen goes further, to any change in the
policy for .org registrations, saying essentially that if they want a
restricted TLD, they should create a new one for it, regardless of any
possible exemptions for existing domain holders.

Where this would get really interesting, is that there are a number of
non-commercial third level domain registries running under .org second
level domains, and there are sites in that namespace that are
commercial in nature.

ICANN needs to not even open this can of worms.

- -- 
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: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:06:30 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Verisign Agreement

ICANN defers VeriSign decision
By Stephen Withers, ZDNet Australia
13 March 2001

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/dailynews/story/0,2000013063,20208666,00.htm

The ICANN board today deferred its decision on the VeriSign agreement, as
foreshadowed by chairman Vint Cerf at yesterday's public forum.

The board instead resolved to finalise the matter in a conference call scheduled
for April 2, giving it time to receive and consider comments from the Domain
Name Support Organisation and other interested parties.

These comments can be lodged through ICANN's Web site or sent to
[email-masked] until March 31.

The board's discussion today suggested the weight of opinion favours "Option B".
As happened at the public forum, most of the concerns expressed seemed to be
about due process, rather than either of the options facing the board.

"My view is that [Option B] is an improvement and a benefit," said Cerf, shortly
before he left the meeting prior to the close of business.

Following the discussion, Elliot Noss, president and CEO of registrar Tucows,
said "This deal [Option B] is much preferred to the previous deal," although
ICANN had missed "an opportunity to get concessions that would have been good
for competition."

<end quote>

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 19:18:14 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Friday, 16 March 2001 7:00 PM
|> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?

|> Most of the criticism I have seen goes further, to any change in the
|> policy for .org registrations, saying essentially that if they want a
|> restricted TLD, they should create a new one for it, regardless of any
|> possible exemptions for existing domain holders.

True and I did gloss over this aspect.  It is a fact .org has been operating
unrestricted for some time and that any change would have an impact regardless
of how existing registrations were treated.

|> Where this would get really interesting, is that there are a number of
|> non-commercial third level domain registries running under .org second
|> level domains, and there are sites in that namespace that are
|> commercial in nature.

I am involved in a third level domain registry that operates under .org.
Although with the operations I'm involved in under .org, it would be possible to
change over to a non-profit organisational structure to protect our users, a lot
would depend on any actual criteria defined by any restrictions placed on the
TLD.  I will be following developments closely.  My own organisation services
over 160,000 users and a large number of these hold hostnames under domains we
have in .org.  BTW...we provide services to these users for free.

|> ICANN needs to not even open this can of worms.

It will certainly be a can of worms.  Especially given the numbers of those that
actually participate in ICANN operations as compared to those affected.  One of
the things I find most disappointing is the fact that so few dictate how the
majority are affected.  Even adding up the numbers of those in the
constituencies, there is not much true representation at present.

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: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 04:21:04 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?

to all-

as you may have noticed, if you go to the www.netsol.com site and request
somename.com, if the .com is not available you are offerred somename.net and
somename.org

clearly, .org and .net are now unfrestricted gTLDs.

There is no way to change that situation, and (IMHO) it should not be
changed. divesting the registry for .org is one thing, and restricting it is
another. let us keep those issues separate.

peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of William
X. Walsh
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 4:00 AM
To: Dassa
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?

Hello Dassa,

Thursday, March 15, 2001, 11:12:15 PM, Dassa wrote:

|>> -----Original Message-----
|>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|>> Jonathan Weinberg
|>> Sent: Friday, 16 March 2001 4:41 AM
|>> To: [email-masked]
|>> Subject: Re: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?

> <<SNIP>>
|>> On the other hand, I think the recent furor over .org
|>> demonstrates that the Internet community would not be willing to see
ICANN
|>> delegate significant policy authority over .org to any new body; rather,
if
|>> restrictions are to be placed on registration on .org, they should be
|>> imposed by ICANN itself, in full public view and with the benefit of
public
|>> comment.  And it is not an easy thing (as the DNSO itself demonstrates)
to
|>> simply create a new, well-functioning, representative organization
whenever
|>> ICANN staff think it would be convenient to have one.

> I haven't seen any "furor" over who takes over the Registry on .org, that
is an
> unknown at this stage.  The only complaints I have seen revolve around the
idea
> of those already holding registrations in .org may be asked to give up
their
> domain names if their organisation doesn't fit into some yet to be defined
> criteria.

Most of the criticism I have seen goes further, to any change in the
policy for .org registrations, saying essentially that if they want a
restricted TLD, they should create a new one for it, regardless of any
possible exemptions for existing domain holders.

Where this would get really interesting, is that there are a number of
non-commercial third level domain registries running under .org second
level domains, and there are sites in that namespace that are
commercial in nature.

ICANN needs to not even open this can of worms.

- --
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

- --
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 00:42:40 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?

Hello Peter,

Friday, March 16, 2001, 12:21:04 AM, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> to all-

> as you may have noticed, if you go to the www.netsol.com site and request
> somename.com, if the .com is not available you are offerred somename.net and
> somename.org

> clearly, .org and .net are now unfrestricted gTLDs.

> There is no way to change that situation, and (IMHO) it should not be
> changed. divesting the registry for .org is one thing, and restricting it is
> another. let us keep those issues separate.

While I agree, the issue is that it appears from the documents that
have been made public, that the future restrictions on .org were an
integral part of the talks between ICANN staff and Verisign on this
point.

In light of that, if a decision is made to go ahead with the plan to
that will separate .org from Verisign, the jump for ICANN to make to
make .org a restricted TLD is a very short one, as long as they are
stuck together, such a jump would be much much harder for them to
make.

As long as there is even the option of this being considered after
such a split, this alone provides a substantial drawback to the entire
deal.   While I have yet to see any real positive benefits of this
deal pointed out by those who have posted here in support of the new
agreement (Kent and Dave?), I seriously doubt if any of them will
outweigh this drawback in my mind.

- -- 
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: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:25:43 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

At 18:17 15/03/01 -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
>Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure why we are all focusing on the vote.
>> 
>> 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.
>
>In mine, the debate and any consensus it may reach are the important thing.
>At most, a vote is a straw poll, an input to discussion. It is never, on
its own,
>a decision-making mechanism.

I agree with both Roberto and Sandy on the importance of discussion and a
reasoned position.

My request for a ruling on the voting options was merely so that the Booth
could be ready by the time we are required to collect the opinions of those
who remain silent in the discussions.

If no ruling comes from the Chair, I will have to make the best of the
public feedback (David Farrar's) I received.

- --joop

- --joop 

The Polling Booth
http://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: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 03:01:48 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

Hello Joop,

Thursday, March 15, 2001, 6:25:43 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 18:17 15/03/01 -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
>>Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure why we are all focusing on the vote.
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>
>>In mine, the debate and any consensus it may reach are the important thing.
>>At most, a vote is a straw poll, an input to discussion. It is never, on
> its own,
>>a decision-making mechanism.

> I agree with both Roberto and Sandy on the importance of discussion and a
> reasoned position.

> My request for a ruling on the voting options was merely so that the Booth
> could be ready by the time we are required to collect the opinions of those
> who remain silent in the discussions.

The only way to accurately collect their opinions is for them to post
them here.

- -- 
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: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:32:13 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From:On Behalf Of Joop Teernstra
|> Sent: Friday, 16 March 2001 1:26 PM
|> To: Sandy Harris; [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal
|>
|> My request for a ruling on the voting options was merely so that the Booth
|> could be ready by the time we are required to collect the opinions of those
|> who remain silent in the discussions.

Having your polling booth ready for anything is your personal business, not a
consideration of the GA.  Although I'm sure the use of the booth is appreciated,
it is only under the directive of the Chair that any substantial results may be
accumulated.  Any thing else is only for personal and subjective consideration.

|> If no ruling comes from the Chair, I will have to make the best of the
|> public feedback (David Farrar's) I received.

Subjective at best and doesn't mean anything but interesting I'm sure.

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: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:28:18 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?

perhaps .ORG should be separate, and unrestricted. that would make for more
competition.

peter

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of William
X. Walsh
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 4:43 AM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: Dassa; [email-masked]
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?

Hello Peter,

Friday, March 16, 2001, 12:21:04 AM, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> to all-

> as you may have noticed, if you go to the www.netsol.com site and request
> somename.com, if the .com is not available you are offerred somename.net
and
> somename.org

> clearly, .org and .net are now unfrestricted gTLDs.

> There is no way to change that situation, and (IMHO) it should not be
> changed. divesting the registry for .org is one thing, and restricting it
is
> another. let us keep those issues separate.

While I agree, the issue is that it appears from the documents that
have been made public, that the future restrictions on .org were an
integral part of the talks between ICANN staff and Verisign on this
point.

In light of that, if a decision is made to go ahead with the plan to
that will separate .org from Verisign, the jump for ICANN to make to
make .org a restricted TLD is a very short one, as long as they are
stuck together, such a jump would be much much harder for them to
make.

As long as there is even the option of this being considered after
such a split, this alone provides a substantial drawback to the entire
deal.   While I have yet to see any real positive benefits of this
deal pointed out by those who have posted here in support of the new
agreement (Kent and Dave?), I seriously doubt if any of them will
outweigh this drawback in my mind.

- --
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

- --
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 11:17:33 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: schedule os action   Re[2]: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

to all:

I suggest that the straw poll first, followed by discussion, then another
straw poll, prior to deadline, say, complete by March 26th, would allow for
whatever consensus regaqrding "status quo"  or "new deal". That would alloow
a few days for writing position papers from all constituencies, and delivery
to NC and BoD.

peter

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of William
X. Walsh
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 7:02 AM
To: Joop Teernstra
Cc: Sandy Harris; [email-masked]
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

Hello Joop,

Thursday, March 15, 2001, 6:25:43 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 18:17 15/03/01 -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
>>Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure why we are all focusing on the vote.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>In mine, the debate and any consensus it may reach are the important
thing.
>>At most, a vote is a straw poll, an input to discussion. It is never, on
> its own,
>>a decision-making mechanism.

> I agree with both Roberto and Sandy on the importance of discussion and a
> reasoned position.

> My request for a ruling on the voting options was merely so that the Booth
> could be ready by the time we are required to collect the opinions of
those
> who remain silent in the discussions.

The only way to accurately collect their opinions is for them to post
them here.

- --
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

- --
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 #286
************************