Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #304
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, March 24 2001           Volume 01 : Number 304

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

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 22:41:32 +0100 (MET)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The GA Chair election -- Call for Endorsement

23 March 2001

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

The Call for Nominations was closed today, Friday, 23 March 2001,
at 17:00 UTC, 18:00 CET (Paris), and the acceptances of nominees
at 20:00 UTC, 21:00 CET (Paris).
Since 21:15 Paris time any message sent liste [email-masked]
is returned with a Delivery-Report "User unknown".

Four (4) among seven (7) nominated candidates accepted to run.
   -------------------------------------------------------------
   Nominees who accepted their nomination for the Chair of the
   General Assembly (GA) (date of reception at the dnso.org,
   CET, Paris)

      * 2001/03/17 Danny Younger, nominated for the first time
        by Joop Teernstra
      * 2001/03/19 Eric Hugh Dierker, nominated for the first
        time by Joanna Lane
      * 2001/03/22 Jonathan Weinberg, nominated for the first
        time by Milton Mueller
      * 2001/03/17 Patrick Corliss, nominated for the first time
        by Joop Teernstra

   No answer received until 21:15 CET, when the ga-nominations
   list was closed:

      * 2001/03/22 Greg Burton, nominated for the first time by
        Harald Alvestrand
      * 2001/03/22 Milton Mueller, nominated for the first time
        by Mikael Pawlo
      * 2001/03/23 Timothy M. Denton, nominated for the first
        time by Ross Wm. Rader
   -------------------------------------------------------------

The endorsement period is:
    open Friday 23 March 2001, 22:00 UTC, 23:00 CET (Paris),
    close Friday 30 March 2001, 21:00 UTC, 23:00 CET (Paris)
(For local time in other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

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

       3a. Full name of the endorser:
       3b. E-mail address of the endorser:
       3c. Full name of the accepted nominee
           you wish to endorse:
           (specific statements of endorsements
           may also be submitted and are encouraged)

Candidates for the Chair of the General Assembly (GA) are:
      * Danny Younger
      * Eric Hugh Dierker
      * Jonathan Weinberg
      * Patrick Corliss

Archives of endorsements received:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-endorsements/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, 23 Mar 2001 22:50:18 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: ORG fees (RE: [ga] New FAQs Posted)

On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, at 16:34 [=GMT-0500], Gomes, Chuck wrote:

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

No, of course not, but what you wrote earlier about past experience
(see below) suggests they must be higher. An interesting fact, I
think, as it will also regard those who already have ORG names, even
if they may keep them... So the proposed new policy, which is part of
the deal, is of consequence for those who now have an ORG name,
whatever the proposed grandfathering will amount to.

> 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.  

Automatic checking of requirements might be difficult to implement for
a TLD that is supposed to serve the whole world. Each country has its
own system of not-for-profits...

> 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.

Is there any reason to assume that only a small number of names will
be requested?

- -- 
[email-masked]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
PROTEST AGAINST LOSING YOUR ORG NAME, OR PAYING HIGHER FEES:

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

> 
> 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

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

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 16:59:44 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ORG fees (RE: [ga] New FAQs Posted)

At 10:50 pm +0100 3/23/01, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>Automatic checking of requirements might be difficult to implement for
>a TLD that is supposed to serve the whole world. Each country has its
>own system of not-for-profits...

I can see Vanuatu coming up with an "instant non-profit org" registration
system whose potential for revenue greatly exceeds dotTV.

And since it doesn't involve any need for checking world-wide non-profit
status for every .org applicant, it's going to be a darn sight easier and
cheaper than what is on the horizon.

So, let's face facts, save a great deal of hassle for all involved, and
leave .org as an open TLD.

I know NSI doesn't want it that way, because it dislikes competition, and
but that's just TOO BAD.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.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 20:16:46 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

As I have reread the original contract, and the FAQs, I think there is great
validity that there is considerable vagueness in the original agreement and
that there is much opportunity for disagreement and different
interpretations between ICANN staff and  Versign/NSI.  I recall how hard it
was to negotiate this agreement, though, and while I was aware of that
vagueness at the time (since I commented extensively on it), there were many
improvements made to it, and I believe it was the best that could be done.

My point here: If option B gives less vagueness and more certainty in
dealing with Verisign/NSI, then that could be a very good change.   

I have found the continued updates/FAQs helpful.  Thanks to the staff for
doing those.  Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 1:16 AM
To: [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
- --
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 20:18:02 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

- -- I think that we should be willing to work within the ICANN process/policy
development process to undertake to develop the policy for .org. That sounds
like  a  process where the non-commercial constituency would want to be
heavily involved--as well as probably many from the non commercial side who
aren't yet involved.
- --Of course, I do think that those already registered need to be
grandfathered but I would expect them/us to participate in the policy
development process. :-)
- --as for cost of domain names, and what that will turn out to be: Costs vary
now, from ccTLD to ccTLD, and from registrar to registrar.  I think the
existing contracts with the new incoming TLDs covers the pricing issue,
doesn't it?

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 2:55 PM
To: [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.O
RG/

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
- --
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 02:37:39 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, at 20:18 [=GMT-0500], Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> -- I think that we should be willing to work within the ICANN process/policy
> development process to undertake to develop the policy for .org. That sounds
> like  a  process where the non-commercial constituency would want to be
> heavily involved--as well as probably many from the non commercial side who
> aren't yet involved.

The NCDNHC has passed (or will pass) this:

"5. The possibility of restricting ORG to only non-profit registrants
is inconsistent with long-standing
policies and practices."

So they are *against* it. IS the DNSO only about helping ICANN to fill
in details where we disagree to the principals?

> --Of course, I do think that those already registered need to be
> grandfathered but I would expect them/us to participate in the policy
> development process. :-)

So, we cannot say "No"? Why not? What is wrong with finding it bad for
the internet to change the character of a TLD with millions of
registrations?

> --as for cost of domain names, and what that will turn out to be: Costs vary
> now, from ccTLD to ccTLD, and from registrar to registrar.  I think the
> existing contracts with the new incoming TLDs covers the pricing issue,
> doesn't it?

Is there a new contract for the proposed non-commercial ORG registry?

- -- 
[email-masked]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
PLEASE, SUPPORT THE BOTTOM-UP "NO" TO BACKROOM DEALS...

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

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 2:55 PM
> To: [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.O
> RG/
> 
> 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
> 

- --
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 18:17:39 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Hello Marilyn,

Friday, March 23, 2001, 5:18:02 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> -- I think that we should be willing to work within the ICANN process/policy
> development process to undertake to develop the policy for .org. That sounds
> like  a  process where the non-commercial constituency would want to be
> heavily involved--as well as probably many from the non commercial side who
> aren't yet involved.

Changing the policy for a long standing top level domain like this is
absolutely NOT something that should even be considered.

The policy statements already on the staff FAQ are inconsistent with
the historical record, which is being twisted to support what is
becoming clear is already a predecided issue as far as ICANN and
Verisign are concerned.

Grandfather or not, this entire suggestion is inappropriate.

.org is a GENERIC top level domain.  Any such change after so many
years of it being that would be grossly inappropriate.

- -- 
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 18:22:38 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

At 11:55 AM 3/23/2001, [email-masked] wrote:
>1. There is no indication that the costs for an ORG domain will not go
>up.

or down.

like any other TLD.

>2. There are no guarentees that we can keep our names.

there are no guarantees for any other TLD.  .org is subject to the same 
limitations and guarantees.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
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 18:30:32 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New FAQs Posted

I do not want to be duped by anyone regarding this .org issue but my reading of
the faqs simply does not support antangonism toward the proposal.  I am only
saying this toward the specific issue of reorganizing the .org.  I just do not see
any change in ICANN policy.

Please point out the CHANGE that will be become effective upon the new agreements.
Not later if and maybe.

Sincerely,

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> 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.

- --
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 20:28:10 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

At 6:17 pm -0800 3/23/01, William X. Walsh wrote:
>.org is a GENERIC top level domain.  Any such change after so many
>years of it being that would be grossly inappropriate.

And once it all gets bulldozed through, watch the IP community push for
.com to be restricted to TM holders only in the near future.

It's called the "thin end of the wedge". New Zealanders know exactly how
politicians use it to get what they want.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.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 18:45:22 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] New FAQs Posted

Hello Eric,

Friday, March 23, 2001, 6:30:32 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> I do not want to be duped by anyone regarding this .org issue but my reading of
> the faqs simply does not support antangonism toward the proposal.  I am only
> saying this toward the specific issue of reorganizing the .org.  I just do not see
> any change in ICANN policy.

> Please point out the CHANGE that will be become effective upon the new agreements.
> Not later if and maybe.

Read the FAQs, Eric.  The thinly veiled assumptions are already there
that ICANN will make this change.  They already are addressing the
question by almost directly saying a non-commercial group will control
.org since they think it best that a non-commercial group vet out
other non-commercials.

It may not come into effect upon signing, but the agreement paves the
way and sets the ball in motion.

- -- 
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, 24 Mar 2001 04:18:05 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, at 18:22 [=GMT-0800], Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 11:55 AM 3/23/2001, [email-masked] wrote:
> >1. There is no indication that the costs for an ORG domain will not go
> >up.
> 
> or down.
> 
> like any other TLD.
> 
> >2. There are no guarentees that we can keep our names.
> 
> there are no guarantees for any other TLD.  .org is subject to the same 
> limitations and guarantees.

Indeed. Everything is uncertain, even this too. Perhaps that is why I
am against introducing changes that have no positive foundation.

- -- 
[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 23:28:19 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

I am sorry Mr. Walsh but you must back up these statements with at least a little
bit of facts.  I have reread the faqs and I still challenge anyone to educate me
on my assumption that this proposes no fundamental changes.

Again there are very important issues regarding the contracts and we should not be
distracted, intentionally or untentionally by non-issues.

Sincerely,

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Marilyn,
>
> Friday, March 23, 2001, 5:18:02 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
> > -- I think that we should be willing to work within the ICANN process/policy
> > development process to undertake to develop the policy for .org. That sounds
> > like  a  process where the non-commercial constituency would want to be
> > heavily involved--as well as probably many from the non commercial side who
> > aren't yet involved.
>
> Changing the policy for a long standing top level domain like this is
> absolutely NOT something that should even be considered.
>
> The policy statements already on the staff FAQ are inconsistent with
> the historical record, which is being twisted to support what is
> becoming clear is already a predecided issue as far as ICANN and
> Verisign are concerned.
>
> Grandfather or not, this entire suggestion is inappropriate.
>
> .org is a GENERIC top level domain.  Any such change after so many
> years of it being that would be grossly inappropriate.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:[email-masked]
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 20:39:20 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Hello Eric,

Friday, March 23, 2001, 11:28:19 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> I am sorry Mr. Walsh but you must back up these statements with at least a little
> bit of facts.  I have reread the faqs and I still challenge anyone to educate me
> on my assumption that this proposes no fundamental changes.

You can assume what you want, while they go ahead like they have in
the past and shut your legs out from under you.

Much like they did when originally every registrar was supposed to be
free to select their own dispute policies, but then in practice later
were forced to adopt the UDRP.

What they SAY and what they MEAN are two different things, and those
of us who are not new to the scene have learned to read ICANN-ese and
to tell when this is happening.

This is what is happening, the writing is on the wall, and has been
documented by many people showing the evidence.

You can refuse to see it, and issue your little challenges all you
want.

But all you are doing is helping them pull this off.

- -- 
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, 24 Mar 2001 07:40:35 +0100
From: "Siegfried Langenbach" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] endorsement for Jon Weinberg as chair

3a. Siegfried Langenbach
3b. [email-masked]
3c. Jonathan Weinberg

- --
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 01:47:49 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [Fwd: [ga] WG-Review website]

Forwarded to the ML as the original posting appears to have bounced, with
apologies to those who have received a copy already.
Regards,
Joanna

> On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> > As previously mentioned in posts to the WG-Review
> > ML, the website
> > http://www.internetstakeholders.com is now
> > available for your consideration.
> >
> > The site is intended as a supplemental aid to the
> > discussions within the WG-Review.  As such, it
> > will serve as a hub for the collation of relevant
> > deliberations, proposals, and comments, within a
> > specified set of topics which have been identified
> > as interests of the WGr. The purpose of the site
> > will be to facilitate the editing and drafting of
> > the WGr's proposal(s) to the BoD as per
> > Resolutions 01.28 & 01.29, as well as any other
> > documents that may be forthcoming.
> >
> > Further, the site will serve the ancillary
> > function of a guage for general sentiment within
> > the WG-Review, and the GA inclusively.  For this
> > purpose, a straw poll feature has been added, and
> > there will be regular updates to the surveys.
> > Please Note: this survey capacity will not serve
> > as an issue resolution mechanism, it is intended
> > strictly for
> > information purposes.  Future plans for the site
> > include a forum function, along with other helpful
> > mechanisms and features.
> >
> > We invite each of you to visit the site at your
> > convenience.  Any comments or suggestions are also
> > welcome.  Send emails to:
> > [email-masked]
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >       Working Chair, WG-Review
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 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 warm 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: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 00:22:39 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

At 07:18 PM 3/23/2001, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, at 18:22 [=GMT-0800], Dave Crocker wrote:
> > there are no guarantees for any other TLD.  .org is subject to the same
> > limitations and guarantees.
>
>Indeed. Everything is uncertain, even this too. Perhaps that is why I
>am against introducing changes that have no positive foundation.

Rather than inventing issues that are not in question, you need to re-read 
the FAQ on the proposed contract.

It cites substantive "positive foundation".

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
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 21:44:33 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 22:15:59 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>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.

That is not an issue.  I don't want it to be biased towards my
opinions any more than I want it to be a cheer leader for the new
agreements.

I believe having the staff act as cheerleaders for a contract they
negotiated without policy guidance is inappropriate.  I want an
analysis which gives a balanced listing of the pros and cons and
allows the reader to decide for themselves if the pros outweigh the
cons.

The analysis places every interpretation of the status quo agreement
under the worst possible light and every part of the new proposal in
the best possible light.  It is unbalanced IMO.  I would have much
higher faith in it if it acknowledged the weaknesses of the new
proposal.

>> 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.  

Rather than presume though why not find out.  Can a Board member
confirm Kent's guess?

>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?

Actually I as a staff member do what my CEO asks me to do.  The CEO
will follow Board decisions and also request from the Chair within the
terms of the delegated authority of the Chair.  How much authority is
delegated to the Chair by the Board?

>> 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.  

No it is not.  His job is to defend the interest of ICANN and not
place possibly unsought opinions on the website which are the legal
equivalent of rolling over to Verisign and saying we will give you
anything you want.

As one knows with any law suit there are always two sides to an
argument - opinions are subjective at best often.  One expects your
lawyer to argue for you not for the other party.

>That is at 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.

I have never mentioned Andrew or criticised him.  In fact I have gone
out of my way to say the criticism of the appalling behaviour by some
staff at Melbourne does not include Andrew.  I have not met Andrew but
generally his electronic communications have struck me as reasonable
and well thought out, even though of course one disagrees on some
issues.

>You are unhappy that the staff analysis doesn't support your point of 
>view -- that's understandable.  

No that is not it.  I would be equally unhappy if their opinion
mirrored what I was saying.  I want them to be non partisan in this.

>But you have descended into personal 
>attacks, and that's not so good.

I have done no such thing.  I have not even named names so how can it
be a personal attack.  It is ludicrous to suggest that one can not
criticise the actions of staff without it being labeled a personal
attack.

I was not even at Melbourne.  But the feedback from those who were was
universally negative.  And we are not talking long haired radicals but
two lawyers, a professor, a business man, a company director, an ISP
manager who gave this feedback.  The feedback also matched what I had
observed on various mailing lists including the Names Council, hence
my comments.

I do not consider myself a "radical"when it comes to ICANN.  I want
ICANN to succeed.  I actually support having a UDRP (but want it more
consistent), I support keeping constituencies, I generally support the
way the Board decided on new TLDs, I do not really support alternative
roots,  and I thought ICANN had done very well with splitting up the
NSI monopoly and introducing registrar competition.

For someone like me who is pretty conservative on most issues to be
appalled by what I observe the staff doing should be ringing warning
bells to those who care.  I have absolutely no commercial interest in
the Internet or ICANN and am purely concerned with what is best for
the Internet (as I am sure others are).  And I am very very concerned
about the attempt to bulldoze these new agreements through as the
effects could be with us for decades.  They also have the potential to
permanently destroy faith in ICANN's ability to succeed.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #304
************************