Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #291
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, March 18 2001            Volume 01 : Number 291

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

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 23:23:07 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Role of US Government

Hello Patrick,

Saturday, March 17, 2001, 11:13:55 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Sunday, March 18, 2001 5:02 PM (AEST)
> William X. Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Saturday, March 17, 2001, 8:48:20 PM, Dassa wrote:
>> > There are always ways around such things.  Nor do I hold with the
>> > Internet infrastructure being bound by US law.
>>
>> Actually it MUST be bound by US law, simply because of the history and
>> our laws.  The role the USG has played and our laws that govern those
>> issues, must be the driving factors.  ICANN it bound by those simply
>> because it is a US based corporation, and the contracts that give it
>> what "power" it has are with the US Government.

> Hi William

> On the one hand you are arguing in favour of a single root under ICANN control
> and on the other hand you are arguing in favour of competitive market forces
> which allow New.Net to set up a competing root.

No, you are misstating my positions.

What I AM saying is that ICANN, whether we like it or not, is going to
be regulated by US Law and by the US Government.

That is a simple fact.

> (1)    If there is a single monopolistic root this would be at risk of breaking
> US anti-trust laws.  Certainly that's an argument that has been made.

> (2)    There is nothing to stop a person in another country, such as Australia,
> setting up another competing root which is not subject to USG laws except as it
> relates to internet use within its jurisdiction.

But that would not be relevant in this forum, since this forum is
dealing exclusive with matters under ICANN's area of control.

- -- 
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: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 23:41:51 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] Draft Resolution

Hello Dassa,

I am going to combined portions of two of your emails here, and
respond to the points, to colsolidate some of it.

Saturday, March 17, 2001, 10:41:40 PM, Dassa wrote:

|>> Under this logic, car makers would be non-profit, since the car
|>> dealers are the ones who deal with the public.

> Do not follow this logic, car makers are not handling a global resource of
> similar nature to the Internet.

Ok, then I'll use the Oil companies and the gas companies as better
examples.

I really do not see namespace as a "global" resource that needs be
managed as some kind of public benefit.

When ever we start to see something turned into a "public benefit" we
see mismanagement.

This is much like the National Health systems in counties like Canada,
where for major non-life threatening procedures, they have to come to
the US and create "immediate" situations which justify them getting
those procedures done here in the US.

Bureaucracy never leads to a positive end, it breeds nothing but more
Bureaucracy.  NSI under their "government regulated" contract was a
perfect example.  The US Social Security system and Medicare system is
another.  Price caps won't change that, since they can always be
revised.  It's better to have competitive models where the market sets
the price.

> I can't see the comparison.  With the model I suggested there would still be
> competition, where it counts.

I don't agree that the registrar level is the only area where it
counts.  As in any competitive model, the suppliers compete with each
other, as well as the businesses who sell the products directly to the
consumer.  Levi's competes with Lee for market share in clothing
industry, and Target and Sears compete for market share in selling
those clothing items to the public.  The suppliers have to worry not
only about public sales market share, but about selling the stores on
carrying their products in order to get them out in front of the
customers.

Registries will need to compete with each other in order to get the
registrars to market their domains.  The more competitive they are in
their dealing with the registrars, the more likely the registrars are
to promote those TLDs.

Simply because they can promote a certain TLD is not enough. For
example, look at OpenSRS RSPs who can sell com/net/org as well as .tv,
.ca, and co.uk/org.uk.   While all of them are selling com/net/org
domains, only a small number are actively promoting the others.  Why?
Because the incentive is not there to do so.  A .ca domain or a .tv
domain costs more, and the .uk domains are less attractive to the end
users since they are third level domains.  More offer co.uk domains
than offer .ca or .tv domains, though, because of the price factor.

The same will be true for the new TLDs.  They will need to compete for
price, for customer attractability, etc.

> Instead of competition at the Registry level you
> would have the price fixed at the lowest possible level.

Well, I don't agree with this concept at all.  The historical record
shows that this kind of structure doesn't work nearly as well as a
truly competitive market place does on its own.

|>> The market should drive the policies, in a competitive environment,
|>> non-profit "control" lends itself to a more "controlling" environment
|>> by bodies like ICANN and other "regulatory" groups who may decide they
|>> should dictate policies for TLDs.

> One of the policies should be to maintain protection of the infrastructure, I do
> not see the protection in having commercial interests looking after the
> Registries.

Of what infrastructure?  The infrastructure is privately owned, its
not in some public trust.  The entire internet is built around and by
commerical interests, and is largely owned by commercial interests.

|>> For example, I would NOT want a group like the SBA controlling policy
|>> for who could register in a .biz TLD.

> But you are willing to have commercial interests decide who may register under
> any given TLD?

Yes.  But most will decide to be unrestricted gTLDs, simply because
that opens the most market potential to them.

> With commercialisation we often get the same and other factors introduced
> including market glut and the failure of a proportion of the entities involved.

I don't consider failure of a registry or registrar to be something
that has to be avoided at all costs.  I think this is a part of any
healthy industry, and when you try and remove something like that from
the equation, you end up causing more harm than good.

> They also try to exploit markets, often having detrimental effects on end users.

Only in markets that are not truly competitive.  The more competitive
the market, the more harm that can come to companies who do not
provide the best possible solution for the market.

> There are limited protection layers for end users.

The law and courts usually provide those protection layers.

- -- 
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 18:49:51 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Role of US Government

On Sunday, March 18, 2001 6:23 PM
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Saturday, March 17, 2001, 11:13:55 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, March 18, 2001 5:02 PM (AEST)
> > William X. Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >> Saturday, March 17, 2001, 8:48:20 PM, Dassa wrote:
> >> > There are always ways around such things.  Nor do I hold with the
> >> > Internet infrastructure being bound by US law.
> >>
> >> Actually it MUST be bound by US law, simply because of the history and
> >> our laws.  The role the USG has played and our laws that govern those
> >> issues, must be the driving factors.  ICANN it bound by those simply
> >> because it is a US based corporation, and the contracts that give it
> >> what "power" it has are with the US Government.
>
> > Hi William
>
> > On the one hand you are arguing in favour of a single root under ICANN
 > > control and on the other hand you are arguing in favour of competitive
> >  market forces which allow New.Net to set up a competing root.
>
> No, you are misstating my positions.
>
> What I AM saying is that ICANN, whether we like it or not, is going to
> be regulated by US Law and by the US Government.
>
> That is a simple fact.
>
> > (1)    If there is a single monopolistic root this would be at risk of
breaking
> > US anti-trust laws.  Certainly that's an argument that has been made.
>
> > (2)    There is nothing to stop a person in another country, such as
Australia,
> > setting up another competing root which is not subject to USG laws except
> > as it relates to internet use within its jurisdiction.
>
> But that would not be relevant in this forum, since this forum is
> dealing exclusive with matters under ICANN's area of control.

I'll accept your clarification but note that your response did not accord with
the argument being put which said:"internet infrastructure" rather than "ICANN".

I'd also note that your response left out my reference to ccTLDs which are in
the ambiguous position of being subject to local law.

Of course, if we are dealing exclusively with matters under ICANN's area of
control we should not discuss anything to do with New.Net or the so-called
"alternate" roots in this forum either.

And I'd suggest that it is the Chair who should adjudicate on where the line
should be drawn.  It's like saying we can't discuss the competition.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 19:34:50 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[6]: [ga] Draft Resolution

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: On Behalf Of William X. Walsh
|> Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2001 6:42 PM
|> Subject: Re[6]: [ga] Draft Resolution
|>
|>
|> Hello Dassa,
|>
|> I am going to combined portions of two of your emails here, and
|> respond to the points, to colsolidate some of it.

|> Ok, then I'll use the Oil companies and the gas companies as better
|> examples.

The Oil Companies are at present, or the last I heard, discussing limiting the
production of oil to increase prices.  It is well known that the current price
of oil is "artificial" as it is with diamonds.  Do you really want to use these
as models for your discussion?

|> I really do not see namespace as a "global" resource that needs be managed as
some kind of public benefit.

You don't?  Is that one of the primary functions of ICANN.  The fact they
delegate the responsibility to others be they commercial or non-commercial does
not limit ICANN responsibility in this issue.  If it isn't a global resource to
be managed for public benefit, what is ICANN doing controlling the name space?

|> When ever we start to see something turned into a "public benefit" we see
mismanagement.

Not always but I agree that this has unfortunately been the case in a number of
examples.  That does not mean mismanagement will always be the consequence
however.

|> This is much like the National Health systems in counties like Canada,
|> where for major non-life threatening procedures, they have to come to
|> the US and create "immediate" situations which justify them getting
|> those procedures done here in the US.

There are a number of reasons for such situations.  I also doubt you would find
the solution in making them totally commercial in nature either.  That would
just cause greater rifts where those who can not afford it will still try to get
treatment in other ways.  It will just mean that more people will not be able to
afford the protection they need.

|> Bureaucracy never leads to a positive end, it breeds nothing but more
|> Bureaucracy.  NSI under their "government regulated" contract was a
|> perfect example.  The US Social Security system and Medicare system is
|> another.  Price caps won't change that, since they can always be
|> revised.  It's better to have competitive models where the market sets
|> the price.

If it is possible to set up a competitive model at the Registry level I do not
have any real objection.  I don't really see it as being necessary but can
appreciate that others do.

|> > I can't see the comparison.  With the model I suggested there would still
be
|> > competition, where it counts.
|>
|> I don't agree that the registrar level is the only area where it
|> counts.  As in any competitive model, the suppliers compete with each
|> other, as well as the businesses who sell the products directly to the
|> consumer.  Levi's competes with Lee for market share in clothing
|> industry, and Target and Sears compete for market share in selling
|> those clothing items to the public.  The suppliers have to worry not
|> only about public sales market share, but about selling the stores on
|> carrying their products in order to get them out in front of the
|> customers.

I do not believe competitive forces at the Registry level will equate to better
use of the name space.  I see it causing a limited number of TLD's being very
competitive and offered at lower prices whilst the majority will be little used
and there will not be any price benefits.  I would rather see promotion of
policies that would increase the spread across all the name space.

|> Registries will need to compete with each other in order to get the
|> registrars to market their domains.  The more competitive they are in
|> their dealing with the registrars, the more likely the registrars are
|> to promote those TLDs.

This sounds reasonable.

|> Simply because they can promote a certain TLD is not enough. For
|> example, look at OpenSRS RSPs who can sell com/net/org as well as .tv,
|> .ca, and co.uk/org.uk.   While all of them are selling com/net/org
|> domains, only a small number are actively promoting the others.  Why?
|> Because the incentive is not there to do so.  A .ca domain or a .tv
|> domain costs more, and the .uk domains are less attractive to the end
|> users since they are third level domains.  More offer co.uk domains
|> than offer .ca or .tv domains, though, because of the price factor.
|>
|> The same will be true for the new TLDs.  They will need to compete for
|> price, for customer attractability, etc.

Price would appear to be only a minor criteria at the market level.  But will
concede that such a model would have the price of .com and other in demand TLD's
go higher whilst unattractive TLD's would fall in price.  This may force a
spread across more of the name space.

|> > Instead of competition at the Registry level you
|> > would have the price fixed at the lowest possible level.
|>
|> Well, I don't agree with this concept at all.  The historical record
|> shows that this kind of structure doesn't work nearly as well as a
|> truly competitive market place does on its own.

I would disagree but then I have not seen too many truly competitive markets.
For the majority there are a number of limiting factors already built in.  I
will have to think about this point.

|> |>> The market should drive the policies, in a competitive environment,
|> |>> non-profit "control" lends itself to a more "controlling" environment
|> |>> by bodies like ICANN and other "regulatory" groups who may decide they
|> |>> should dictate policies for TLDs.
|>
|> > One of the policies should be to maintain protection of the infrastructure,
I do
|> > not see the protection in having commercial interests looking after the
|> > Registries.
|>
|> Of what infrastructure?  The infrastructure is privately owned, its
|> not in some public trust.  The entire internet is built around and by
|> commerical interests, and is largely owned by commercial interests.

I consider the name space as part of the infrastructure, it is not privately
owned and is currently controlled by ICANN.  The physical structures may be for
the most part owned by commercial interests, I agree.

|> |>> For example, I would NOT want a group like the SBA controlling policy
|> |>> for who could register in a .biz TLD.
|>
|> > But you are willing to have commercial interests decide who may register
under
|> > any given TLD?
|>
|> Yes.  But most will decide to be unrestricted gTLDs, simply because
|> that opens the most market potential to them.

This is true, as we saw with the implementation of .org.

|> > With commercialisation we often get the same and other factors introduced
|> > including market glut and the failure of a proportion of the entities
involved.
|>
|> I don't consider failure of a registry or registrar to be something
|> that has to be avoided at all costs.  I think this is a part of any
|> healthy industry, and when you try and remove something like that from
|> the equation, you end up causing more harm than good.

The data a Registry holds is something that must be protected.  The entities
responsible for it must be accountable to the end users.  I see having
non-commercial entities with the responsibility as being more attractive.

|> > They also try to exploit markets, often having detrimental effects on end
users.
|>
|> Only in markets that are not truly competitive.  The more competitive
|> the market, the more harm that can come to companies who do not provide the
best possible solution for the market.

In truly competitive markets you would find a tendency for companies to take
more risks in attempts to bolster market share, this is a danger in itself.

|> > There are limited protection layers for end users.
|>
|> The law and courts usually provide those protection layers.

Which in the majority of cases would be US law and US courts even for those
users in other countries.

BTW...I am not totally opposed to the model you are promoting.  I am interested
in seeing discussion on alternatives however.

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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 10:57:37 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Role of US Government

Patrick, William,

> > > setting up another competing root which is not subject to USG laws 
>except
> > > as it relates to internet use within its jurisdiction.
> >
> > But that would not be relevant in this forum, since this forum is
> > dealing exclusive with matters under ICANN's area of control.
>
>......
>
>And I'd suggest that it is the Chair who should adjudicate on where the 
>line
>should be drawn.  It's like saying we can't discuss the competition.

The issue of alternater roots is clearly on the border line, and 
historically the discussion has taken place also in this forum because the 
matter is of true interest, even if from a strict point of view is not 
related to ICANN.

This said, I would personally recommend (i.e. as a participant, not as 
Chair) that we focus in the next few days specifically on the contribution 
to give to ICANN + NC on the specifics of the contract, and on the 
elections. We have already so many posts to read without engaging in 
theoretical discussions on competition and alternate roots, that are not at 
all out of order, but possibly badly timed.

Just a personal opinion.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 06:01:57 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] competition ?

There are a lot of postings about the role of US government, profit and
non-profit companies controlling name space, etc.

What about "Status quo" or "new deal" ?

Will the competition model under the two deals really matter once the new
gTLDs turn on?

Presumably, VeriSign will have little to do with this area, except possibly
as one of many registrars in the game.

Does anyone think their (VeriSign's) market share will decrease with new
gTLDs in the marketplace?

peter de Blanc

- --
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 06:04:27 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Role of US Government

Roberto, et all..

I think the part about competition is germane to this discussion, and our
recommendations.

I beleive that when the new gTLDs come on line, VeriSign's market share will
decrease, and that the competition issue will be less of an issue.

peter de Blanc
(NC Member ccTLD)

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Roberto
Gaetano
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 5:58 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Role of US Government

Patrick, William,

> > > setting up another competing root which is not subject to USG laws
>except
> > > as it relates to internet use within its jurisdiction.
> >
> > But that would not be relevant in this forum, since this forum is
> > dealing exclusive with matters under ICANN's area of control.
>
>......
>
>And I'd suggest that it is the Chair who should adjudicate on where the
>line
>should be drawn.  It's like saying we can't discuss the competition.

The issue of alternater roots is clearly on the border line, and
historically the discussion has taken place also in this forum because the
matter is of true interest, even if from a strict point of view is not
related to ICANN.

This said, I would personally recommend (i.e. as a participant, not as
Chair) that we focus in the next few days specifically on the contribution
to give to ICANN + NC on the specifics of the contract, and on the
elections. We have already so many posts to read without engaging in
theoretical discussions on competition and alternate roots, that are not at
all out of order, but possibly badly timed.

Just a personal opinion.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

- --
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 21:07:44 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  Role of US Government

On Sunday, March 18, 2001 8:57 PM (AEST)
Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The issue of alternater roots is clearly on the border line, and 
> historically the discussion has taken place also in this forum because the 
> matter is of true interest, even if from a strict point of view is not 
> related to ICANN.
> 
> This said, I would personally recommend (i.e. as a participant, not as 
> Chair) that we focus in the next few days specifically on the contribution 
> to give to ICANN + NC on the specifics of the contract, and on the 
> elections. We have already so many posts to read without engaging in 
> theoretical discussions on competition and alternate roots, that are not at 
> all out of order, but possibly badly timed.
> 
> Just a personal opinion.

Thank you, Roberto.

Of course I would bow to the Chair even in "personal opinion" mode.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 11:08:21 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mime-Version: 1.0

Joop,

>
>Personally, I think that a ticket based approach is to the benefit of
>effective  GA Chairing and it is a pity that we do not have the time to
>discuss amending the election rules to achieve a better approach.

????

The issue of elections was raised before Marina del Rey, i.e. more than four 
months ago, which should have been sufficient time to discuss.

Unfortunately, we have now defined a procedure, which for the nomination 
phase is the "statu quo" (individual candidates, not a ticket). I am sure 
that the new Chair will keep this discussion in mind for further 
modification of the election process.

On the merit of the "double nomination", may I incidentally note that 
nothing prevents people to nominate both candidates, with two separate 
ballots, obtaining the same effect but complying to the rules.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 11:17:01 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mime-Version: 1.0

Jefsey,

>I though an average brain would understand that I nominate both of them
>with the intent that people vote for Danny first and for Patrick afterward.

Unfortunately the e-mail processor that automatically counts the ballots is 
less smart than the average brain on this list ;>) and may therefore discard 
ballots that are not compliant with the template.

As the recent events in Florida have shown ;>) it is better to make sure 
that the ballot follows the rules rather than to have controversial manual 
recounts afterwards.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 12:12:36 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Kent,

I'm coming now, after the F1 Grand Prix of Malaysia, to the second and more 
important part of your message.

You wrote:
>
>On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 02:43:12PM +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >   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.
>
>With all due respect, there may be a reason why Vint is chairman, and
>you are not.  If one is trying to win concessions in a contract,
>sometimes telling your negotiating partner to "stuff it" might not be the
>best way to proceed.

I do agree with you on the first part, but going further with the 
reasonment, I would assume that one person with the experience of Vint would 
have found a polite way to make the remark, would he have been willing to 
make clear (to Verisign and to the Internet community) that the future of 
.org is only determined by ICANN, and is not part of the negotiation.

Having not seen that, I may suspect that this *is* indeed part of the deal.

>
> >   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.
>
>Of course.  It's a no-brainer, and is exactly what people on this list
>and elsewhere are clamoring for.
>

You mean that of course Verisign decides the future of .org?
I think we have a misunderstanding here. I must have not been sufficiently 
clear.

> >   Joe Sims, in fact, presented this as an advantage of the solution "B"
> >   (the new contract). And this makes me even more suspicious.
>
>Are you misreading what the above letter says?  Clearly, Mr Sclavos is
>concerned that ICANN will throw a bunch of people out of .org, and he
>has been reassured that won't happen.  This is precisely what people
>have been clamoring for.  Why on earth does that make you suspicious?
>

The fact that ICANN will throw people out of .org is so absurd, from my 
point of view, that I was not even taking this into consideration, and I 
tend to believe that neither did Mr. Sclavos.
What I am fearing is that Verisign is willing to grant the $$$ only subject 
to conditions on the future charter of the registry and/or the 
organizational type of the (future competing) Registry.

Verisign uses a language in the letter that assumes that this is a deal, and 
states that this has been discussed.
Or do you think that one of the reasons Mr. Sclavos is CEO of Verisign and 
we don't is that he writes one thing and implies another? ;>)

> >   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.
> >
> >
> >   Is the reason the "pressure from the Internet community to restore the
> >   original function of .org"? No way.
>
>False.  Prior to this proposal, in fact, it was common to lament that
>.org had been perverted.  I find it quite reasonable that someone would
>think that the Internet community might look with favor on the idea.

You rightfully said "[it] had been perverted". I lament that too. But this 
cannot be fixed anymore.
It would be utterly unfair to apply a more restrictive charter after the 
Registry has been "perverted" for some time: we have to live with that.

>
> > 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.
>
>That's fine, and if that's what the Internet community wants, that is
>indeed what they will get.  As I read the contract, there is nothing at
>all that determines what the registration policies for the new registry
>would be.

Correct.
I was talking, though, about the statements on the letter about ICANN's 
intentions, that have not been corrected by ICANN so far.

>
>Moreover, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the ICANN staff
>was trying to get what they considered the best possible deal for the
>internet community out of those discussions, and let the community
>decide whether they were good enough.
>
>[...]
>
> >   The fact that the Registry that will inherit .org must be a non-profit
> >   is spelled out in 5.1.4.
> >
> >   IANAL, but I believe that if ICANN wants to change this, Verisign may
> >   refuse to pay the $5M.
>
>I believe that the phrase "ICANN, at its sole discretion...", trumps that.
>

Not really.
The phrase, conveniently cut in your quote, continues, and reads "ICANN in 
it sole discretion to establish an endowment to be used to fund future 
operating costs of the non-profit entity designated by ICANN as successor 
operator of the .org registry.".
My understanding is that the $$$ are conditional to the fact that the new 
operator is non-profit.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:16:40 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] competition ?

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: On Behalf Of Peter de Blanc
|> Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2001 9:02 PM
|> Subject: [ga] competition ?
|>
Hello Peter

|> There are a lot of postings about the role of US government, profit and
|> non-profit companies controlling name space, etc.
|>
|> What about "Status quo" or "new deal" ?

I do believe the discussion today was relevent in that it mainly concerned
competition models.  This has relevance as under the new proposal there is no
need for Verisign to divest itself of either the Registry or the Registrar side
of its business.  The discussion today covered the need for competition at the
Registry level.  This may be of use to those who are considering this aspect.
As stated previously, I would like to see Verisign divest itself of either the
Registry or the Registrar functions.

|> Will the competition model under the two deals really matter once the new
|> gTLDs turn on?

This is a good point.  Should there be a requirement for any Registry to only
operate one TLD?  Is there any need to force Versign to divest itself as there
will soon be other players acting as Registries with the new TLD's?

|> Presumably, VeriSign will have little to do with this area, except possibly
|> as one of many registrars in the game.

There would appear to be a need to not only have competition at the Registrar
level but to make sure there is also competition at the Registry level.  Do
people think there will be enough competition introduced with the new TLD's and
Registries?  Personally I do not think so if Versign is allowed to continue with
both Registry and Registrar functions.

|> Does anyone think their (VeriSign's) market share will decrease with new
|> gTLDs in the marketplace?

I consider it will decrease, by how much is another matter.  It would certainly
not decrease in the short term to more acceptable(?) levels.

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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 12:13:54 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mime-Version: 1.0

I am proud of having been confused with Joop!
(sorry Joop if it means that NewZealandese looks like Frenglish to an 
Aussie :- ). Never minde when I speak English it is worse: very often 
people ask me if I am Australian :-) )

Patrick, I feel I recall you accepted the ticket concept and you said you 
would be proud too to work with Danny. There was even a 12 hours difference 
advantage.
I support that ticket idea.

I strongly recommand that people pick my way of nominating Danny and you 
unless Secretariat comes back saying it does not work on their opinion.

I convey the idea that:
- - I nominate Danny and you
- - to do a work together.

If Secretariat disagrees I will propose
"
I nominate for Chair:
- - Danny ...
- - Patrick ....
blah blah
This nomination is made to support a ticket where Danny would be Chair and 
Patrick co-Chair and I suggest you vote accordingly."

We will see what Secretariat responds. But to obtain a result we have to 
hammer this new concept to the 297 voting members.

Jefsey

PS. My mail was private, since you made the response public I am to respond 
on the GA. I apologize to all for that.

- --
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 12:55:32 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Mime-Version: 1.0

Dear WXW,

On 04:54 18/03/01, William X. Walsh said:
>Hello Jefsey,
>Saturday, March 17, 2001, 5:42:11 PM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > Dear WXW,
> > I though an average brain would understand that I nominate both of them
>Watch it Jefsey. I'd hate to see you suspended at this vital stage....

No offense intended, nothing personal here. I just meant that not over legally
meant people would understand my intent.

> > with the intent that people vote for Danny first and for Patrick afterward.
>And if more people think Patrick best suited for Chair, he will get
>elected.  The point is we have to follow our process.

This is their position. Mine is to support both of them together.
I suppose I have the right to tell it.

>As it is, Patrick is not a candidate for Co-Chair, since you did not
>nominate him properly as a candidate for Chair, which is where the
>co-chair pool of candidates will be chosen.

Two possibilities:
- - either Secretariat accepts this and he his
- - or Secretariat does not accept it and I will mail another nomination

My point is I want the maximum number of people to be aware that I
support the Ticket proposed by Joop first but I intended to propose.
I do thank you through this thread which helps my campaigning.

I have not met Danny but I was impressed by his working and
synthetisis capacity at the WG-Review. Joop described additional
qualities from his f2f meeting.

I have often enough disputed with Patrick to be convinced that we
disagree on most of the ways to approach the issues while we
basically agree on them (what is tiresome but permits to work more
deeply on good consensa). I also know his entusiasm, his working
capacity and his published desire and excitment to work with
Danny.

Also this means two people from two different areas. One of the
reasons GA has not been that much involved is that Chair and
co-Chair were European. I object to the existing rule which does
not preclude the two Chairs to be from the same geographical
area.

>Trying to change the process by "default" is simply not acceptable.

Acceptable to who. For what. There are rules, there is a Secretariat
to enforce them. If they say I am wrong, I will abide by their decision
and publish revised nominations I will comment. If I am right in an
other arena you were among those calling for nominations and
acceptances to be documented, what I considered as elementary
courtesy from nominees and quite usefull from members.

We are currently in a straw poll process where the Chair asked for
the positions to be documented. I abide by the same spirit and I
document nominations. I strongly recommand others to do the same.
I think net-democracy can only win from this. Don't you agree?

>We have a process, we need to stick to it, or risk losing the ability
>to have this kind of input into who the GA chair will be.

I see your point. IMHO - I may be wrong - any feeling of organization
and determination we may give to the NC is good for us and good for
them. NC knows we are not happy with them but want to cooperate.
They have the critics. I suppose they would be happy having the
help and the more we are oganized the better our help should be.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #291
************************