Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #287
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, March 17 2001           Volume 01 : Number 287

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

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:55:17 -0500
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: schedule of action   Re[2]: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

         I'd suggest a slightly different tack.  It's fairly obvious, from 
the postings in the straw poll to date, that a consensus process in the GA 
on this issue would generate one of two possible positions:   [1] "As 
between the status quo contract and the proposed revision, it is the 
consensus of the GA that the status quo contract is preferable"; or [2] "As 
between the status quo contract and the proposed revision, the GA cannot 
reach consensus as to which is preferable."   I think we've established 
that the GA is *not* likely to reach consensus that the proposed revision 
is the way to go.  So we've narrowed the options, and that's pretty much 
what a straw poll can do for us.  The next step is for proponents of Option 
A to generate, as soon as possible, a well-reasoned document stating the 
arguments supporting their position, so that that document can be discussed 
on the list.  (Roberto has said that he will try to post something 
summarizing the arguments so far, but that doesn't mean that others 
shouldn't try to produce their own work or to coordinate with him.)  If the 
sentiment on the list seems to favor the document, the Chair might consider 
working with the Secretariat to schedule a formal vote by the GA whether to 
adopt it.  All of this will have to happen quite quickly, perhaps 
impossibly quickly, if it is to happen on the Board's timeframe:  If we are 
to hold a one-week vote on some proposed document in time to deliver it to 
the Board so that the Board members can digest it before their own vote, 
our vote will have to begin *no later than a week from now*.

         It would make sense, I think, for any constituency that wants to 
submit views in its own name to start its own process going now, without 
regard to ours.  I gather that the registrars have already begun doing this.

Jon

Jon ("grizzled veteran of DNSO working-group administration") Weinberg
[email-masked]

At 11:17 AM 3/16/2001 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:
>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

- --
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 18:36:47 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Straw Poll

my straw poll position is statu quo

rationale is:

- -  handling of the relations by the Staff is in violation of the bylaws and 
Internet spirit
- -  the reached consensus is only between iCANN and VeriSign Staffs, hardly 
a large community
- -  the future of .org has been drafted as part of Plan B where it does not 
belong
- -  $ 5 millions are allocated to the iCANN through a future OrgNIC probably 
managed by the Staff but not controlled by the Board
- -  $ 200 millions of R&D are involved in the deal. I want to have 
information on the planned targets. If they include - as there are reasons 
to suppose - DNS security "enhancements" and multinational domain naming in 
a way enforcing a defacto TLD monopoly, I am opposed to such an effort.
- -  I am favoring a non-profit cooperative management of the TLDs in order 
to allow them to get a real meaning. In such a scheme Registrars are mostly 
cooperative and oriented towards matters specific to the TLD Charter and 
Registries are dedicated to the Registration sevrice and value added. 
Statu-quo does not forbid this vision. Plan B does.
- -  it appears now that Plan B is part of the gTLD plan, at least its 
doctrine. I oppose that plan and favor  the conception presented by the BoD 
at the GAC MDR meeting of one million TLDs.
- -  I have several other reasons based upon a personnal evaluation of the 
internal relations within the "governance". I consider such an evaluation 
as serious enough to mention it but not yet verified enough to use it in 
documenting a position.

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: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:50:54 +0100 (MET)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Two calls: (1) Nominations for GA Chair, (2) Election Rules

Today, 16 March 2001, the Secretariat is sending two calls:

1. Call for Nomination of candidates for election to the
   Chair of the General Assembly
      open  Friday 16 March 2001, 18:00 CET (Paris time), 17:00 UTC
      close Friday 23 March 2001, 18:00 CET
      For local time in other places see
      http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/.

2. Call for vote on Election Rules proposed by Harald Alvestrand.
   http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html
      open  Friday 16 March 2001, 21:00 CET (Paris time), 17:00 UTC
      close Friday 23 March 2001, 21:00 CET
      For local time in other places see
      http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/.

These two calls are in parallel.

Any person member to the DNSO GA may nominate candidates for election
to the Chair of the General Assembly.

Only those who subscribed to the GA voting registry will receive
ballots related to the Election Rules.

If the Election Rules get approved (call no 2), the GA will have a new
ballot to rank the nominated candidates (call no 1) and advise the Names
Council of its preferences.

DNSO Secretariat
- --
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 19:25:39 +0100 (MET)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Call for Nominations for GA Chair

16 March 2001.

Call for Nomination of candidates for election to the Chair 
of the General Assembly of the DNSO.

The Secretariat determined with Roberto Gaetano and Harald Alvestrand,
the DNSO GA Chairs, and Philip Sheppard, NC Chair, that the 2001 
election will take place between 2nd March and 10 April 2001, 
with the following agenda: 
     Friday,   02 Mar - Remider about voting roster, two weeks to register 
     Friday,   16 Mar - Call for nominations issued 
     Friday,   23 Mar - Call for endorsements issued 
     Friday,   30 Mar - List of candidates closes 
     Saturday, 31 Mar - Vote of the GA voting registry initiated 
     Saturday, 07 Apr - Vote of the GA voting registry closes 
     Sunday,   08 Apr - Results calculated 
     Tuesday,  10 Apr - NC elects the Chair and Alternate from 
                        the candidates ranked by the GA vote 

The nomination period is:
    open  Friday 16 March 2001, 18:00 CET (Paris time), 17:00 UTC
    close Friday 23 March 2001, 18:00 CET (Paris time)
The acceptance period close on Friday 23 March 2001 at 21:00 CET
(For local time in other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

Nominations must be sent by e-mail to [email-masked]. 
Please use a Template for nomination: 

   1a. Full name of the nominee:
   1b. E-mail address of the nominee:
   2a. Full name of the nominator:
   2b. E-mail address of the nominator:
   2c. Type of GA membership:
       (GA-ga subscriber, GA-announce subscriber,
        GA-voting registry, Working Group subscriber,
        or DNSO Constituency member)

Acceptances must be sent by e-mail to [email-masked]. 
Please use a Template for acceptance: 

   1a. Full name of the nominee:
   1b. E-mail address of the nominee:
   1c. Background information about the nominee:
   1d. Statement of the nominee's objectives
       in the role as Chair of the GA:
       (including his or her views of the role
       of the GA and its relationship with the
       Names Council and Constituencies of the DNSO)

Each nominee will be requested for acceptance statement by the
Secretariat.

Archives of nominations and acceptances received: 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc01

Please consult
       http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html
for more information on the DNSO GA Chair election.

DNSO Secretariat

- --
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 11:16:33 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?

Hello Peter,

Friday, March 16, 2001, 5:28:18 AM, Peter de Blanc wrote:

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

Perhaps, but I don't think that will happen.  I believe, and so far
the documents have supported this, that the move to a restricted .org
TLD has been an important part of the the talk over spinning off .org.
It would not surprise me at all if Verisign's people first floated it,
either.

I honestly do not think that there will accrue any benefits to having
.org spun off now, anyway.

- -- 
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 20:42:53 +0100 (MET)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Vote for Election Rules for the DNSO GA

On the request of GA' Chairs the Secretariat is initiating today
the General Assembly vote for Election Rules for the DNSO GA.
All subscribers to the Voting Registry, 295 persons, will receive
ballots shortly.

DNSO Secretariat
- --

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-vote.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           DNSO General Assembly
                   Vote for Election Rules for the DNSO GA
                                    b03

16 March 2001

Vote for Election Rules for the DNSO GA

   * Election Rules submitted for vote
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html 

Basic outline of the voting for Election Rules for the DNSO GA

   * Basic outline http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-b03-outline.html

Electorate and Voting Registry

   * Electorate. Voting roster
     http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b03rosterindex.html, as of 16 March
     2001, at the time the ballot was sent out.
   * Voting Registry
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html

Voting Rules used by the DNSO General Assembly

   * Voting rules http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html

Time for the vote

   * Begins: Friday 16 March 2001, 20:00 UTC
     (12:00 LA, 15:00 New York, 21:00 Paris, 04:00 next day Tokyo)
   * Ends: Friday 23 March 2001, 20:00 UTC
     (12:00 LA, 15:00 New York, 21:00 Paris, 04:00 next day Tokyo)

On Saturday 24 March 2001 the results will be calculated and published here.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Information from:  © DNSO GA's Chair

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

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

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 08:44:04 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: schedule of action   Re[2]: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:55:17 -0500, you wrote:

>         It would make sense, I think, for any constituency that wants to 
>submit views in its own name to start its own process going now, without 
>regard to ours.  I gather that the registrars have already begun doing this.

Can I endorse this view.  For historical reasons the consensus of the
GA alone is unlikely to carry much weight (but will carry some).
However if the DNSO reports each of the seven constituencies also has
consulted its members and their views are X, then position X will be
very hard for the Board to ignore.

DPF

- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 09:22:53 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA Straw Poll

My preference is option A.: to keep the contract with NSI of 1999 and
recommend that the Board do not proceed with the new contract prepared and
negotiated by the staff.

Reasons:

1. Extremely harmful loss of credibility for ICANN as a bottom -up
decisionmaking process, if the Board carries out policy decisions once
again that have been made without advice from the DNSO.
This reason carries more weight than the others, in my view.

2. Competition among registries is not significantly enhanced if Verisign
spins off a "restricted" .org TLD 

3. ICANN has indicated that some .org registrants may lose acquired rights
at some time after the spinoff. If this is the case it is better that .org
remains with Verisign.

4. Continued functioning by Verisign as registry and registrar for .com
will affect the businesses of competing registrars negatively and enhance
the market dominance of Verisign. 
ICANN was committed to enhancing competition in the name registration
industry, for the benefit of the Name Holders.
ICANN accredited Dot com registrars have invested in  their businesses in
the expectation that NSI/Verisign would be divested of the registrar business.
They too will lose faith in ICANN if the new deal goes ahead.

I am conscious of some positive aspects (for ICANN, not necessarily for the
stakeholders) of the new agreement, but they are outweighed, IMHO, by the
negatives listed above. 

- --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: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:51:23 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: schedule os action   Re[2]: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

Sounds like a workable idea.  We really need more "straw votes".

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
To: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "Sandy Harris" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 9:17 AM
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

- --
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 16:49:49 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: schedule of action   Re[2]: [ga] Voting options for the Veris ign deal

I also suggested earlier to others that the constituencies must form views,
since they worked together to generate a NC resolution. 

I believe that several are hard at work to try to understand the
issues/benefits/risks, etc.

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 2:44 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: schedule of action Re[2]: [ga] Voting options for the
Verisign deal

On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:55:17 -0500, you wrote:

>         It would make sense, I think, for any constituency that wants to 
>submit views in its own name to start its own process going now, without 
>regard to ours.  I gather that the registrars have already begun doing
this.

Can I endorse this view.  For historical reasons the consensus of the
GA alone is unlikely to carry much weight (but will carry some).
However if the DNSO reports each of the seven constituencies also has
consulted its members and their views are X, then position X will be
very hard for the Board to ignore.

DPF

- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:00:41 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Board Decisions

At 00:21 16/03/2001 +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>(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.

don't forget that Verisign is planning to comply with Plan A if that turns 
out to be the contract that is standing.
The buyer of the Registry or Registrar piece will be very surprised if 
Verisign comes back 12 months later and says "oops - I wanted to keep it 
anyway".

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [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 18:00:44 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Still waiting..

Hello Kent and Dave,

Still waiting for one of you two who support the new contract to
please explain to us the benefits you see and how they outweigh the
drawbacks.

Or anyone who thinks the new contract is the way to go.

I'm still open to change my position if someone can explain clearly
what specific measurable benefits accrue to the internet community
over the existing contract, and if those benefits outweigh the
drawbacks to it.

If no one can answer this question, then perhaps we must simply assume
that our initial analysis is correct, which is that this contract
benefits only Verisign and the positions of those ICANN staffers who
want to make drastic changes to DNS policy that are not consistent
with reality.

- -- 
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 22:25:23 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re:[ga] straw poll

- --part1_e8.11f2e90d.27e43323_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

definite vote to keep old contract

Option 1

yofelipe (I, Phillip)
Phil King
Butte MT USA
The Richest Hill On Earth!

- --part1_e8.11f2e90d.27e43323_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  COLOR="#8000ff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Franklin Gothic Book" LANG="0">definite vote to keep old contract
<BR>
<BR>Option 1
<BR>
<BR>yofelipe (I, Phillip)
<BR>Phil King
<BR>Butte MT USA
<BR>The Richest Hill On Earth!</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_e8.11f2e90d.27e43323_boundary--
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 16:18:41 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Chair Nomination

Chair nomination: 

1a. Full name of the nominee: Danny Younger
   1b. E-mail address of the nominee: <[email-masked]>
   2a. Full name of the nominator: Joop Teernstra
   2b. E-mail address of the nominator: [email-masked]
   2c. Type of GA membership: 
       (GA-ga subscriber, GA-announce subscriber,
        GA-voting registry, Working Group subscriber,
        or DNSO Constituency member): 
all of the above (dnso Constituency not yet recognized)

Co-Chair nomination

1a. Full name of the nominee: Patrick Corliss
1.b. Email address of the nominee: <[email-masked]>
2a. Full name of the nominator: Joop Teernstra
   2b. E-mail address of the nominator: [email-masked]
   2c. Type of GA membership: 
       (GA-ga subscriber, GA-announce subscriber,
        GA-voting registry, Working Group subscriber,
        or DNSO Constituency member): 
all of the above (dnso Constituency not yet recognized)

- --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: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 16:36:42 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: schedule of action   Re[2]: [ga] Voting options for the  Verisign deal

At 11:55 16/03/01 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>         I'd suggest a slightly different tack.  It's fairly obvious, from 
>the postings in the straw poll to date, that a consensus process in the GA 
>on this issue would generate one of two possible positions:   [1] "As 
>between the status quo contract and the proposed revision, it is the 
>consensus of the GA that the status quo contract is preferable"; or [2] "As 
>between the status quo contract and the proposed revision, the GA cannot 
>reach consensus as to which is preferable."  

Excellent , oh grizzled veteran of  wg-consensus.  :-)
Unless  there are further improvements, this is the text I will put up in
the Booth.

I know that Booth result will not be official, but I think it is valuable
that we have
1. a real-time view on the voting
2. automatic tallying on the Web
3. a comment space where voters can summarize their reasoning, making it
easy for anyone to present the combined summary to the NC.
4. speed of implementation.

- --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: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 17:27:40 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: schedule of action   Re[2]: [ga] Voting options for the  Verisign deal

On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 16:36:42 +1300, you wrote:

>At 11:55 16/03/01 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>>         I'd suggest a slightly different tack.  It's fairly obvious, from 
>>the postings in the straw poll to date, that a consensus process in the GA 
>>on this issue would generate one of two possible positions:   [1] "As 
>>between the status quo contract and the proposed revision, it is the 
>>consensus of the GA that the status quo contract is preferable"; or [2] "As 
>>between the status quo contract and the proposed revision, the GA cannot 
>>reach consensus as to which is preferable."  
>
>
>Excellent , oh grizzled veteran of  wg-consensus.  :-)
>Unless  there are further improvements, this is the text I will put up in
>the Booth.

I think it would look very bad politically if one does not have an
option for voting in favour of the proposed changes.  I would phrase
it as thus:

(a) I support the status quo agreement over the proposed revisions
(b) I support the proposed revisions over the status quo agreement
(c) I have no preference for one over the other

I would then have a second question, being

Do you support a 60 day extension to the May 18 Registrar divestiture
date for Verisign under the existing contract, in order that
amendments to the proposed new contract can be considered by ICANN and
the DNSO?

(a) Yes I support a 60 day extension
(b) No I oppose a 60 day extension
(c) I have no preference

>I know that Booth result will not be official, but I think it is valuable
>that we have
>1. a real-time view on the voting
>2. automatic tallying on the Web
>3. a comment space where voters can summarize their reasoning, making it
>easy for anyone to present the combined summary to the NC.
>4. speed of implementation.

I think in this situation the booth can be useful and support it being
used, while noting it is unofficial and will not be the final GA
position.  

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 18:20:07 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Draft Resolution

It is obvious from both the quantitative and qualitative posts that
there is much more support for the status quo agreement over the
proposed changes.  The various polls being run will give us some idea
of the numbers - I would like to focus on getting a resolution which
as many people as possible can agree to which details why we oppose
the proposed changes.

My draft is below.  It is just my draft and maximum feedback is
encouraged.  Hopefully we can sort the wording out within 3 days or so
and then see how many people we can sign up to support it.  If we get
a comprehensive resolution some constituency reps may even want to use
it within their constituencies (if they agree with basic thrust).

DRAFT RESOLUTION

That the General Assembly of the DNSO of ICANN opposes ICANN
rescinding the current TLD registry contract with Verisign in favour
of the proposed new contract.

The GA opposes the proposed changes because we believe they will not
benefit the Internet Community as a whole, as specified in Article 4
of the ICANN Articles of Association.

Specifically we believe the proposed changes overall significantly
increase the risk of monopolistic behaviour and reduce competition.
The combination of allowing Verisign to both keep its registrar
business and also gain a presumptive right to *.com would put in place
considerable anti competitive incentives.  

The proposed changes are also essentially ir-reversible.  

We believe there is no consensus in the Internet community for these
changes, and in fact on the contrary there is a considerable consensus
against the proposed changes being rushed through in such a short
time-frame.

If the ICANN Board was to agree to such dramatic changes against the
wishes of the DNSO Names Council and constituencies there would be
great damage done not just to competition within the DNS but more
fundamentally to ICANN itself.  The principle of consensus based
decision making which so many hold dear would be shattered possibly
ir-redeemably.

Specific concerns the general assembly has regarding the proposed
contract are:

- - The granting of a presumptive right to be the *.com registry to
Verisign.  By lowering the necessary performance standard to retain
*.com *which makes up 65% of all domain names in the world), this
removes a huge pressure on the registry to keep prices as low as
possible and to have the best possible relationship with Registrars
- - Allowing Verisign to retain its registrar business puts in place
perverse anti-competitive incentives regardless of organisational
firewalls. 
- - Verisign would be in a position where it could purchase other
Registrars thus once again gaining over 50% or even 75% of the
registrar market in *.com, as well as the registry.
- - The possibility of a change to the status of *.org registration
- - Granting the ability to Verisign to increase registry prices with
only 30 days notice
- - The ambiguity over what the $200 million to be invested in registry
development would actually be, and the lack of any clear process to
audit this.  
- - The non-transparent process used to negotiate these agreements which
are then presented as not negotiable to the ICANN Board and DNSO
- - The detrimental effects on registrars who have become registrars and
invested money on the basis of the existing contract (which mandates
the Verisign registry must divest the registrar business)
- - The unfair advantage the Verisign Registrar would gain by being able
to sell domains with a zero wholesale cost, thus potentially forcing
out many smaller competitors
- - The total lack of outside analysis on whether the proposed changes
will be beneficial to the Internet community

The General Assembly recognises that parts of the proposed new
contracts would bring benefits to the Internet community.  However the
GA believes that these benefits are minor compared to the
ir-reversible and major drawbacks of the contracts, thus our strong
recommendation is to remain with the existing contract.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 02:25:49 -0500
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Draft Resolution

At 06:20 PM 3/17/01 +1300, DPF wrote:

>My draft is below.  It is just my draft and maximum feedback is
>encouraged.  Hopefully we can sort the wording out within 3 days or so
>and then see how many people we can sign up to support it.

Hi David,

I think that this is an excellent first draft. You have summed up the 
objections to the proposed agreement quite clearly.
There are only I few minor things that I would change:

>DRAFT RESOLUTION  [ cut ]
>
>The GA opposes the proposed changes because we believe they will not
>benefit the Internet Community as a whole, as specified in Article 4
>of the ICANN Articles of Association.

should this say "ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION" instead?

>Specific concerns the general assembly has regarding the proposed
>contract are:
>
>- The possibility of a change to the status of *.org registration

I would stress this point more strongly. This is one of the key issues that 
is upsetting the community as a whole. It is not just a "possibility" -- it 
is more like an implication. Since the Board has not come out and clearly 
stated that they would not retroactively modify the TLD, most people assume 
it will be changed.  Maybe it would be a good idea to point out that NSI 
has been encouraging people to by .ORG domains for years. To change the 
rules and make a switch from an open to a restricted TLD at this point 
would never work.

>- The non-transparent process used to negotiate these agreements which
>are then presented as not negotiable to the ICANN Board and DNSO

There are quite a few strongly-worded quotes from Board and NC members to 
back this up. Maybe it would be a more powerful statement if we used some?

Best Regards,

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #287
************************