Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #303
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, March 23 2001            Volume 01 : Number 303

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

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 18:03:41 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Nomination for Chair - Bob Davis

All remaining assembly members,

To: GA-nominations
with CC to the GA and Bob Davis

   1a. Full name of the nominee: Robert A. Davis
   1b. E-mail address of the nominee: [email-masked]
   2a. Full name of the nominator: Jeffrey A. Williams
   2b. E-mail address of the nominator: [email-masked]
   2c. Type of GA membership: GA
       (GA-ga subscriber, GA-announce subscriber,
        GA-voting registry

  I nominate Bob Davis because of his steller preformance as a
leader and facilitator in our organization, a execellent business
community leader in his community, a knowledgable individual
in areas of internet affairs, ecommerce.  He has been a participant
of the DNSO GA for some time and understand the issues
involved.

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, 22 Mar 2001 18:13:16 -0600
From: "Kevin M. Kelly" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Curiosity question, .CLUE?

JW wrote (on the Domain Policy List):
>
>
>  Does anyone know if anyone is running a TLD registry for
>.CLUE?
>
>

Hi Jeff,

Maybe you should get a .clue!

Nominating Bob Davis????!!!? for Chair of the GA. I'm dying to find out who's
going to second this nomination!

Regards,
Kevin
_________________________________________________________________
Kevin M. Kelly, Ph.D.
The University of Iowa & The World Wide Web
Learn more at http://www.KMKelly.net
Have you established http://www.Your-Internet-Presence.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: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 17:05:29 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 08:35:34 -0600, you wrote:

>At 06:30 AM 3/22/2001, DPF wrote:
>>I am absolutely stunned by the litany of opinions posing as facts in
>>these FAQs.
>>...
>>In any company I know of, staff who behave in that way would have been
>>sacked.
>
>Perhaps the irony of your note escaped you, but you offer only your summary 
>opinion and no facts at all to substantiate them.

The irony is that I am not a staff member of ICANN.  I am a proponent
of a particular point of view offering an opinion not an analysis.  In
many other posts I have provided an analysis but in this case it was
merely an opinion.

>Whatever your extensive experience with proper staff functions, the 
>analysis provided by ICANN staff is actually quite professional.  It labels 
>opinions as opinions.  It analyses contract language and describes specific 
>obligations and lack of obligations, in terms of common expectation about 
>Verisign.

The analysis is extremely slanted, ignores many negative attributes,
glosses over others and puts the most unfavourable interpretation on
the existing contract.

Also who asked for the staff to do this lobbying?  Did the Board ask
the staff to do this?

>Staff are not expected to be machines; professional analysis had better 
>include professional opinions.

Conclusions such as that Verisign would be unbeatable to retain the
registries under the existing contract are highly inappropriate for
staff to make.  Has anyone considered that if ICANN stays with the
existing contract the staff had undermined ICANN's negotiability to
such an extent it is almost crippled because they have stated what the
decision has to be in six years time.  

I have spoken to around a dozen people who attended the Melbourne
meeting.  All were stunned at the attitude and actions of certain
staff members (I do not include Andrew McLoughlin or the new CEO in
this) which reflected extremely poorly on ICANN.  

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: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 22:15:59 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 05:05:29PM +1200, DPF wrote:
[...]
> 
> >Whatever your extensive experience with proper staff functions, the 
> >analysis provided by ICANN staff is actually quite professional.  It labels 
> >opinions as opinions.  It analyses contract language and describes specific 
> >obligations and lack of obligations, in terms of common expectation about 
> >Verisign.
> 
> The analysis is extremely slanted, ignores many negative attributes,
> glosses over others and puts the most unfavourable interpretation on
> the existing contract.

That is, it doesn't favor your interpretation.

> Also who asked for the staff to do this lobbying?  Did the Board ask
> the staff to do this?

Wouldn't be at all surprised.  Vint Cerf, Chairman of the Board,
obviously has supported these agreements, in case you haven't noticed.  
If you were a staff member, and the chair of the board asked you to do 
something, would you do it?

> >Staff are not expected to be machines; professional analysis had better 
> >include professional opinions.
> 
> Conclusions such as that Verisign would be unbeatable to retain the
> registries under the existing contract are highly inappropriate for
> staff to make.

The "staff" includes Louis Touton, General Counsel for the corporation. 
Contrary to your assertion, it is his *job* to offer his best opinion as
to the meaning of the various clauses in the contract.  That is
precisely why people hire lawyers, after all.  This goes for other staff
members -- Andrew is a policy analyst; it is his job to give his
opinion, as well.

You are unhappy that the staff analysis doesn't support your point of 
view -- that's understandable.  But you have descended into personal 
attacks, and that's not so good.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 13:17:51 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Small question

We now hear from FAQ why Plan A is so poor.  Why did we not hear about it 
before?
Why was it to VRSN to propose a VRSN change and not to the iCANN to demand 
and iCANN correction?

Jefsey

If our advisors did not report before why Plan A is so weak, cann't we 
expect they will only report in a few months why Plan B is worst?

- --
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, 23 Mar 2001 10:22:44 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution)

On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Let me first of all reiterate what I just said in a response to Michael
> Froomkin: :  "Under the existing agreement, there is a commitment for $0.
> Under the new agreements, there is a commitment for $200M."

Let me reiterate what I said before:
1) if stock options and rent count here, what does this mean?

2) VeriSign is smart.  It will spend what it takes anyway.

So here's something new:

	Let's have a baseline.  Using the accounting method you plan to use
to count the $200 million, how much was spent on "r&d and infrastructure"
in each of the last three years during which the commitment was, as you
say, zero?

- --

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 07:14:26 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Small question

On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 01:17:51PM +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> We now hear from FAQ why Plan A is so poor.  Why did we not hear about it 
> before?

You haven't heard about it before because you weren't here when the
agreements were signed.  There was a great deal of discussion about the
NSI agreement when it occured -- one might go far as to say that there 
was a great deal of resentment that it was such a sweet deal for NSI.  
But NSI held numerous good cards in the negotiation.

> Why was it to VRSN to propose a VRSN change and not to the iCANN to demand 
> and iCANN correction?

Hard to say why VRSN proposed a change, but it is not unusual for a
business to pursue things that they think will be advantageous to them. 
Clearly, ICANN didn't "demand" a change because they have no legal
grounds to support such an action.  The nature of a contract is that
*both* parties must agree.  Only if NSI gave them an opening could they
try to negotiate a better result. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 05:26:17 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Small question

On Saturday, March 24, 2001 2:14 AM (AEST)
Kent Crispin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 01:17:51PM +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > We now hear from FAQ why Plan A is so poor.  Why did we not hear about it
> > before?
>
> You haven't heard about it before because you weren't here when the
> agreements were signed.  There was a great deal of discussion about the
> NSI agreement when it occured -- one might go far as to say that there
> was a great deal of resentment that it was such a sweet deal for NSI.
> But NSI held numerous good cards in the negotiation.

Sorry, did I miss something?  Were you part of the negotiating team?
Or otherwise present when the agreements were signed?

> > Why was it to VRSN to propose a VRSN change and not to the iCANN to demand
> > and iCANN correction?
>
> Hard to say why VRSN proposed a change, but it is not unusual for a
> business to pursue things that they think will be advantageous to them.
> Clearly, ICANN didn't "demand" a change because they have no legal
> grounds to support such an action.  The nature of a contract is that
> *both* parties must agree.  Only if NSI gave them an opening could they
> try to negotiate a better result.

You're not making sense here, Kent.  If a contract is between two parties, why
would one be more constrained than the other?  Verisign proposed the change
because they wanted the presumptive right to keep dot COM.  The ICANN staff
negotiated what they felt were better terms.

I think you will find that Verisign felt they would not "trade off" any further.

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, 23 Mar 2001 20:55:12 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

ICANN has added new answers to the FAQ about the Verisign agreement at

http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm

These are about the policy for ORG... At last.

I note the following:

1. There is no indication that the costs for an ORG domain will not go
up. On the contrary. If the new ORG will enforce strict registration
requirements, as is suggested, prices must go up or the new registry
will go bankrupt. CHecking registrations takes time = costs money. 
2. There are no guarentees that we can keep our names.
3. The interpreation of the RFC that describes ORG policy has been
refuted already by a number of people. ORG was for *all* entities that
did not fit into NET or COM, nit just ORGanizations.
4. The real reason for a non-profit ORG registry is again kept from
us: To make a competitor of Verisign's com impotent.

So, the protest needs more support. Numbers, 1domain1vote, bottom
up. Let them hear your voice, if you own an ORG!

Please, send your ORGs
to: [email-masked]

or: [email-masked]

The list of supporting ORG domains can be found at:

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

or again: http://disgrace.org/

- -- 
Marc Schneiders

- --
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, 23 Mar 2001 12:27:20 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Small question

On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 05:26:17AM +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> On Saturday, March 24, 2001 2:14 AM (AEST)
> Kent Crispin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 01:17:51PM +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > > We now hear from FAQ why Plan A is so poor.  Why did we not hear about it
> > > before?
> >
> > You haven't heard about it before because you weren't here when the
> > agreements were signed.  There was a great deal of discussion about the
> > NSI agreement when it occured -- one might go far as to say that there
> > was a great deal of resentment that it was such a sweet deal for NSI.
> > But NSI held numerous good cards in the negotiation.
> 
> Sorry, did I miss something?

Apparently.

> Were you part of the negotiating team?

No.

> Or otherwise present when the agreements were signed?

Effectively, yes, as were hundreds of other people.  I was not present
in the room when pen was put to paper, but the agreements were posted to
the public prior to an ICANN public meeting, there was *lots* of spirited
discussion at that meeting; proposals for modifications were made at 
that meeting; the negotiating team spent all night in a hotel room and 
came back with some modifications agreed to by both parties.  This was 
also presented in public, and the Board approved the agreements.  The 
physical act of putting signature to paper was an implementation detail.

> > > Why was it to VRSN to propose a VRSN change and not to the iCANN to demand
> > > and iCANN correction?
> >
> > Hard to say why VRSN proposed a change, but it is not unusual for a
> > business to pursue things that they think will be advantageous to them.
> > Clearly, ICANN didn't "demand" a change because they have no legal
> > grounds to support such an action.  The nature of a contract is that
> > *both* parties must agree.  Only if NSI gave them an opening could they
> > try to negotiate a better result.
> 
> You're not making sense here, Kent.  If a contract is between two
> parties, why would one be more constrained than the other?

I didn't say that one was more constrained than the other -- the
asymetry was in Mr Morfin's statement -- he used "proposed" on one hand
and "demand" on the other.  Either side could have *proposed* changes. 
Mr Morfin used the term "demand"; likewise, there was no basis for
either side to *demand* a change.  

ICANN had no reason to propose changes because they knew, as does
everyone else with any knowledge at all about the situation, that NSI
already had a very sweet deal, and there was no reason to suppose that
NSI would want to give up anything at all.  But, given the opening, the
staff got what I consider to be fairly significant concessions.  In
return, VRSN gets a significant improvement in the stability of their
situation.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 15:40:20 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] New FAQs Posted

Considering that there has been a lot of concern expressed on this list
regarding the changes proposed for the .org registry, for those who are not
aware, ICANN posted six additional FAQs today, all regarding .org questions:

http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm

I believe that the answers given may alleviate some peoples' concerns about
contemplated changes to the .org registry and the .org TLD as related to the
proposed new agreements with VeriSign.  I think that FAQs #12 and #13 may be
of particular interest.

I would also like to respond to a statement in FAQ #11: "Until 1996, Network
Solutions enforced the restrictions on .org registrations, but due to NSI's
resource limitations active enforcement of the restrictions was suspended
early in that year. Since then, the restrictions have been enforced only
through self-selection."  I happened to be around when the change was made -
it was made at the recommendation of Jon Postel.  He specifically
recommended that we quit screening and allow users to self-select their TLD.
The problem with screening was that there was no meaningful and functional
way to determine who met the criteria (the same applied to .net) and what
was happening is that we were rewarding those willing to lie and penalizing
those who were honest.  To implement any sort of workable screening system
(if it is even possible on a global scale) at a minimum would have been very
expensive and would have slowed down service levels significantly.
Chuck Gomes
Vice President, Policy & Compliance
VeriSign Global Registry Services

- --
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, 23 Mar 2001 22:10:36 +0100 (MET)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RESULTS of the Vote for Election Rules for the DNSO GA

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b03results.html ]
[ See also http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-vote.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           DNSO General Assembly
           RESULTS of the Vote for Election Rules for the DNSO GA

23 March 2001

RESULTS of the Vote for Election Rules for the DNSO GA

Election Rules proposed by Harald Alvestrand:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html

Electorate: 295 persons in a
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b03rosterindex.html, Vote Roster, when the
ballot was sent out

Voted: 67

Vote results:

   * 57 votes [X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
   * 3 votes [X] No, the Election Rules should not be adopted.
   * 7 votes [X] I abstein.

According to the voting rules in use
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html:

     5. In the case where the question is a new rule or rule change for
     the GA, the number of votes in favour of the winning alternative
     must be at least 2/3 of cast votes, with a minimum number of cast
     votes being the lower of 20% of the registered voters or 100
     votes.

The number of cast votes is 67.

To be adopted, an alternative shall be supported by "2/3 of cast votes",
i.e. 45, with a minimum number of cast votes being the "lower of 20% of the
registered voters or 100 votes", i.e. 59.

Therefore the proposed rules are adopted (57 of "Yes" is greater than 45,
the number of cast votes, 67, is greater than 59).

Vote records.

   * Each voter got an aknowledge quoting his ballot as received.
   * Each voter may recognize its ballot in the attached public record by
     his personnal code.
   * We had several special cases, fixed as follows:
       1. all votes with "yes" or "y" instead of "x" (upper and lower case
          alike) counted as "x"
       2. one voter put "No, the Election Rules should not be adopted.",
          outside of ballot, counted as "No" -- b03:K886fZ
       3. one voter put "Yes", outside of ballot, counted as "Yes" --
          b03:Kf1d1Z
       4. one voter put "Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted", outside
          of ballot, counted as "Yes" -- b03:Kf092Z
       5. one voter put only one line "I abstein" without reminding part of
          ballot, counted as abstention -- b03:Ka95bZ
       6. two voters edited ballot, suppressing lines with unwanted
          alternatives, fixed -- b03:K1a2aZ, b03:Kd469Z
       7. one voter changed secretariat's typo "abstein" to the correct
          English "abstain", counted as abstention -- b03:Kcc7aZ
   * We received eleven (11) delivery-reports related to the GA Voting
     Registry emails. Published in
     http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterproblems.html. One problem fixed
     since then.
   * Besides 67 casted votes, five additional voters replied to the
     Secretariat Reminder message with "Basic outline exemple template",
     instead of reply to [email-masked] message with their personalized
     code -- four (4) yes, one (1) abstain, all discarded.

Public record

Ballot sent with       3 choices
           b03:[ ] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
           b03:[ ] No, the Election Rules should not be adopted.
           b03:[ ] I abstein.

Electorate of     295 persons, casting one vote each
Ballots received from      67 persons (sorted by arrival time)
           Elisabeth Porteneuve
           Kendall Dawson
           Paul Stahura
           David Farrar
           Richard W. Kroon
           Danny Younger
           Kevin M. Kelly
           Chris Jara
           Kevin Cronin
           Alec Barea
           ken stubbs
           Camron Johnson
           Micha Reisel
           Alejandro Pisanty
           Darrell Greenwood
           Clara Collado
           Kristal Preschern
           Scott Hollenbeck
           Bruce James
           Marc Schneiders
           Michael Castello
           Joanna Lane
           Harald Tveit Alvestrand
           Markus Ulysses Hafner
           Peter de Blanc
           Jan Gora
           David Ervin
           Mohammed Mohsin Ali
           Michael Miller
           Mohammed Zeeshan Ahmed
           Alberto Pellizzari
           Kilian Wahl
           Alexander Svensson
           Steffen Goewe
           Nikhil Narayanan
           Lee Lowery
           Jean-François C. (Jefsey) Morfin
           Erick Iriarte
           Chris Anderson
           Henning Grote
           Dany Vandromme
           Jonathan Weinberg
           Stephen Boyle
           Dave Geurs
           Chuck Gomes
           Michaela Gerberich
           Joop Teernstra
           Roger Klaus
           Rod Dixon
           Jeffrey Williams
           Roberto Gaetano
           Darryl G Lynch
           Michael Haffely
           Jack F Freund III
           Tobias Kleck
           Michael F. McNulty
           Anna Pinkes
           Frederic Wilf
           Curt Stafford
           Giacomo Catenazzi
           Dirk Lorenz
           Charles Shaban
           Jean Pierre Galeazzi
           David Keegel
           Mark Poole
           Annie Renard
           Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Casted votes (sorted by personal code)
           b03:K1945Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K1a28Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K1a2aZ casted  1 votes
           b03:K1b03Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K2406Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K2698Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K2a0dZ casted  1 votes
           b03:K2a3eZ casted  1 votes
           b03:K31a3Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K3538Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K3558Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K3589Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K37b2Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K3976Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K3e11Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K409eZ casted  1 votes
           b03:K452eZ casted  1 votes
           b03:K4c3bZ casted  1 votes
           b03:K4d0dZ casted  1 votes
           b03:K4d20Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K572cZ casted  1 votes
           b03:K5768Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K5b1dZ casted  1 votes
           b03:K5f59Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K603cZ casted  1 votes
           b03:K6807Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K6d90Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K703bZ casted  1 votes
           b03:K7413Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K7f31Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K8069Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K8675Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K886fZ casted  1 votes
           b03:K8b23Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K8b78Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K8c59Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K8cc0Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K8cefZ casted  1 votes
           b03:K9816Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K9d68Z casted  1 votes
           b03:K9eb9Z casted  1 votes
           b03:Ka245Z casted  1 votes
           b03:Ka95bZ casted  1 votes
           b03:Kaae3Z casted  1 votes
           b03:Kaf4cZ casted  1 votes
           b03:KafafZ casted  1 votes
           b03:Kb7e7Z casted  1 votes
           b03:Kb8fdZ casted  1 votes
           b03:Kb937Z casted  1 votes
           b03:Kb9b3Z casted  1 votes
           b03:Kbc9dZ casted  1 votes
           b03:Kc36bZ casted  1 votes
           b03:Kc376Z casted  1 votes
           b03:Kcc7aZ casted  1 votes
           b03:Kd1cdZ casted  1 votes
           b03:Kd28eZ casted  1 votes
           b03:Kd469Z casted  1 votes
           b03:Kd520Z casted  1 votes
           b03:Kd5f0Z casted  1 votes
           b03:Ke05dZ casted  1 votes
           b03:Ke2dcZ casted  1 votes
           b03:Kf092Z casted  1 votes
           b03:Kf186Z casted  1 votes
           b03:Kf1d1Z casted  1 votes
           b03:Kf326Z casted  1 votes
           b03:Kfc5eZ casted  1 votes
           b03:Kffb0Z casted  1 votes

Nb of casted votes      67
Nb of choices who received more than zero votes       3
           57 Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
            3 No, the Election Rules should not be adopted.
            7 I abstein.

Public results (sorted by personal code)
 b03:K1945Z:[Yes] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K1a28Z:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K1a2aZ:[x] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K1b03Z:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K2406Z:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K2698Z:[x ] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K2a0dZ:[yes] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K2a3eZ:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K31a3Z:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K3538Z:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K3558Z:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K3589Z:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K37b2Z:[ X] I abstein.
 b03:K3976Z:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K3e11Z:[x] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K409eZ:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K452eZ:[x] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K4c3bZ:[x] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K4d0dZ:[x] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K4d20Z:[ X ] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K572cZ:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K5768Z:[X] I abstein.
 b03:K5b1dZ:[x] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K5f59Z:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K603cZ:[x] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K6807Z:[x ] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K6d90Z:[ x] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K703bZ:[x ] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K7413Z:[ X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K7f31Z:[x] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K8069Z:[ X ] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K8675Z:[Y] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K886fZ:[x] No, the Election Rules should not be adopted.
 b03:K8b23Z:[ X ] I abstein.
 b03:K8b78Z:[x] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K8c59Z:[Y] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K8cc0Z:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K8cefZ:[x] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K9816Z:[X] I abstein.
 b03:K9d68Z:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:K9eb9Z:[X] I abstein.
 b03:Ka245Z:[x] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:Ka95bZ:[x] I abstein.
 b03:Kaae3Z:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:Kaf4cZ:[x] No, the Election Rules should not be adopted.
 b03:KafafZ:[X] No, the Election Rules should not be adopted.
 b03:Kb7e7Z:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:Kb8fdZ:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:Kb937Z:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:Kb9b3Z:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:Kbc9dZ:[x ] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:Kc36bZ:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:Kc376Z:[x] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:Kcc7aZ:[X ] I abstein.
 b03:Kd1cdZ:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:Kd28eZ:[x] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:Kd469Z:[Yes] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:Kd520Z:[x] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:Kd5f0Z:[x] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:Ke05dZ:[X ] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:Ke2dcZ:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:Kf092Z:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:Kf186Z:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:Kf1d1Z:[x] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:Kf326Z:[x] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:Kfc5eZ:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.
 b03:Kffb0Z:[X] Yes, the Election Rules should be adopted.

- --End

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Information from:  © 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, 23 Mar 2001 13:16:50 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New FAQs Posted

Hello Chuck,

Quite the contrary.  The seem to CONFIRM the concerns.

Based on this fact alone, Plan B needs to be rejected because it opens
the door to this kind of change in policy which will certainly be
against the best interests of the internet community.

Friday, March 23, 2001, 12:40:20 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Considering that there has been a lot of concern expressed on this list
> regarding the changes proposed for the .org registry, for those who are not
> aware, ICANN posted six additional FAQs today, all regarding .org questions:

> http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm

> I believe that the answers given may alleviate some peoples' concerns about
> contemplated changes to the .org registry and the .org TLD as related to the
> proposed new agreements with VeriSign.  I think that FAQs #12 and #13 may be
> of particular interest.

> I would also like to respond to a statement in FAQ #11: "Until 1996, Network
> Solutions enforced the restrictions on .org registrations, but due to NSI's
> resource limitations active enforcement of the restrictions was suspended
> early in that year. Since then, the restrictions have been enforced only
> through self-selection."  I happened to be around when the change was made -
> it was made at the recommendation of Jon Postel.  He specifically
> recommended that we quit screening and allow users to self-select their TLD.
> The problem with screening was that there was no meaningful and functional
> way to determine who met the criteria (the same applied to .net) and what
> was happening is that we were rewarding those willing to lie and penalizing
> those who were honest.  To implement any sort of workable screening system
> (if it is even possible on a global scale) at a minimum would have been very
> expensive and would have slowed down service levels significantly.
> Chuck Gomes
> Vice President, Policy & Compliance
> VeriSign Global Registry Services

> --
> 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

- -- 
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, 23 Mar 2001 22:28:25 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] New FAQs Posted

On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, at 15:40 [=GMT-0500], Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Considering that there has been a lot of concern expressed on this list
> regarding the changes proposed for the .org registry, for those who are not
> aware, ICANN posted six additional FAQs today, all regarding .org questions:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm

[...]

> I would also like to respond to a statement in FAQ #11: "Until 1996, Network
> Solutions enforced the restrictions on .org registrations, but due to NSI's
> resource limitations active enforcement of the restrictions was suspended
> early in that year. Since then, the restrictions have been enforced only
> through self-selection."  I happened to be around when the change was made -
> it was made at the recommendation of Jon Postel.  He specifically
> recommended that we quit screening and allow users to self-select their TLD.
> The problem with screening was that there was no meaningful and functional
> way to determine who met the criteria (the same applied to .net) and what
> was happening is that we were rewarding those willing to lie and penalizing
> those who were honest.  To implement any sort of workable screening system
> (if it is even possible on a global scale) at a minimum would have been very
> expensive and would have slowed down service levels significantly.

Does this mean that you also think that a restricted ORG, as now
suggested in the FAQ, would mean an increase in registration fees for
ORG domains? And that it will not work anyway? 

- -- 
[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, 23 Mar 2001 16:34:22 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New FAQs Posted

I don't have any way of knowing what the fees might be.

I do believe though that it is very difficult to implement restrictions
unless there is a way to automate the process.  But if the restrictions must
be controlled manually, it won't scale.  If there is a small number of
names, scaling is not an issue.  The more the number of names increases the
more scaling becomes an issue.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 4:28 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [ga] New FAQs Posted

On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, at 15:40 [=GMT-0500], Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Considering that there has been a lot of concern expressed on this list
> regarding the changes proposed for the .org registry, for those who are
not
> aware, ICANN posted six additional FAQs today, all regarding .org
questions:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm

[...]

> I would also like to respond to a statement in FAQ #11: "Until 1996,
Network
> Solutions enforced the restrictions on .org registrations, but due to
NSI's
> resource limitations active enforcement of the restrictions was suspended
> early in that year. Since then, the restrictions have been enforced only
> through self-selection."  I happened to be around when the change was made
- -
> it was made at the recommendation of Jon Postel.  He specifically
> recommended that we quit screening and allow users to self-select their
TLD.
> The problem with screening was that there was no meaningful and functional
> way to determine who met the criteria (the same applied to .net) and what
> was happening is that we were rewarding those willing to lie and
penalizing
> those who were honest.  To implement any sort of workable screening system
> (if it is even possible on a global scale) at a minimum would have been
very
> expensive and would have slowed down service levels significantly.

Does this mean that you also think that a restricted ORG, as now
suggested in the FAQ, would mean an increase in registration fees for
ORG domains? And that it will not work anyway? 

- -- 
[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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #303
************************