Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #305
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, March 25 2001            Volume 01 : Number 305

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

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 21:46:50 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 20:16:46 -0500, you wrote:

>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.   

Option B is less vague which is a good thing.  However it is less
vague by effectively giving Verisign what they want (*.com for ever
and keep the registrar business).

On this measure the best contract is one which says we allow Verisign
to do anything they want.  No vagueness at all :-)

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

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

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 22:01:06 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The GA Chair election -- Call for Endorsement

3a. David Farrar
3b. [email-masked]
3c. Jonathan Weinberg

I fully endorse the nomination of Professor Weinberg to the
Chairmanship of the General Assembly.

Jonathan has a solid track record within ICANN as the former Chair of
a working group.  I believe he is a proponent of sensible progressive
change to improve ICANN, and has an eminent reputation which will lend
status to the general assembly which he would represent to the ICANN
Board and the Names Council.

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

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

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 05:45:43 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

    This argument in my non-humble opinion has us right on track with what we
should be worrying about -- methodology.  Mr. Touton should answer this directly.
The staff is being misused to replace the GA the IDNHO and the ALMs.  These are
brilliant young men who deserve our admiration.  No one deserves to be put in this
position, yet Mr. Touton has seen fit to commit to this course of action.  I beg
our corporate representative to give us a humble opinion.  (in case that is too
hard for the ivory school chaps, what I mean is, Mr Touton weigh in or back out!)
And do pardon any innapropriate participles.  You do seem to be hiding behind your
employees.

And now I am regretably placed in this position.  But here lies the core of our
issues when unobstructed by obstructionists.

Sincerely,

DPF wrote:

> 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
> --

- --
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 02:56:13 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New FAQs Posted

> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 1:34 PM
 
> 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.

Policies according to the original charter for ORG, are almost impossible to
maintain automagically. You stated this yourself, years ago. I was one of
those that agreed. In fact, none of the three charters are maintainable nor
are they scalable. This argument was made in defense of the accusation made,
against NSI, for allowing erosion of the com/net/org charters. I recall that
you put forth a defense for having ORG and NET become the overflow for COM,
as an NSI practice, at that time. This happened on the DOMAIN-POLICY list,
before ICANN was formed.

IMNSHO, most of the concern, that I see expressed, comes from a promise to
redefine, but not having presented the new definition(s). Yet, we are asked
to accept the new definition, no matter what it is. This is the equivalent
of buying a pig in a poke-sack. No wonder folks are uneasy about it... duh!

The whole thing looks like an end-run, around the DNSO and the @large. The
disturbing thing is that is by-passes a great deal of policy discussion and
removes some policy control from the ICANN.

- --
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 07:34:22 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New FAQs Posted

Roland,

I agree that the .org issues are clearly policy issues that should be
decided through the DNSO consensus building process.  In the latest FAQs
posted by ICANN, that is what will happen.  So there certainly does not seem
to be an end run around that process.  Also, for such a process to be done
well, it will take a great deal of time.  But I believe  there is nothing in
the new .org agreement that anyway bypasses or removes any of the .org
policy control from ICANN or the community in any significant way unless you
think these requirements do that: the new registry will be a non-profit
organization, VeriSign cannot be associated with the new registry in any
way, the new registry needs to begin operation not later than January 1,
2003, the new registry will have $5M start-up for operating costs, and the
new registry will be able to use VeriSign Registry's global resolution and
distribution facilities.

Chuck  

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Saturday, March 24, 2001 5:56 AM
To:	'Gomes, Chuck'; [email-masked]'
Cc:	[email-masked]'
Subject:	RE: [ga] New FAQs Posted

> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 1:34 PM
 
> 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.

Policies according to the original charter for ORG, are almost impossible to
maintain automagically. You stated this yourself, years ago. I was one of
those that agreed. In fact, none of the three charters are maintainable nor
are they scalable. This argument was made in defense of the accusation made,
against NSI, for allowing erosion of the com/net/org charters. I recall that
you put forth a defense for having ORG and NET become the overflow for COM,
as an NSI practice, at that time. This happened on the DOMAIN-POLICY list,
before ICANN was formed.

IMNSHO, most of the concern, that I see expressed, comes from a promise to
redefine, but not having presented the new definition(s). Yet, we are asked
to accept the new definition, no matter what it is. This is the equivalent
of buying a pig in a poke-sack. No wonder folks are uneasy about it... duh!

The whole thing looks like an end-run, around the DNSO and the @large. The
disturbing thing is that is by-passes a great deal of policy discussion and
removes some policy control from the ICANN.
- --
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 07:44:37 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

David,

To be a little more precise, I would say that the new .com agreement gives
VeriSign some of what it wants.  We certainly did not want to give up .net
and .org.  We certainly did not want to have contractual terms that are less
favorable to us.  We would rather not commit to $205M in costs.  Etc.  But
that is what happens when two parties negotiate.  There is give and take on
each side.  Both sides compromise on some issues to get other things they
think are important.

Chuck

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	DPF [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Saturday, March 24, 2001 4:47 AM
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Re: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 20:16:46 -0500, you wrote:

>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.   

Option B is less vague which is a good thing.  However it is less
vague by effectively giving Verisign what they want (*.com for ever
and keep the registrar business).

On this measure the best contract is one which says we allow Verisign
to do anything they want.  No vagueness at all :-)

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

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

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 05:02:57 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] New FAQs Posted

Hello Chuck,

Saturday, March 24, 2001, 4:34:22 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Roland,

> I agree that the .org issues are clearly policy issues that should be
> decided through the DNSO consensus building process.  In the latest FAQs
> posted by ICANN, that is what will happen.  So there certainly does not seem
> to be an end run around that process.  Also, for such a process to be done
> well, it will take a great deal of time.  But I believe  there is nothing in
> the new .org agreement that anyway bypasses or removes any of the .org
> policy control from ICANN or the community in any significant way unless you
> think these requirements do that: the new registry will be a non-profit
> organization, VeriSign cannot be associated with the new registry in any
> way, the new registry needs to begin operation not later than January 1,
> 2003, the new registry will have $5M start-up for operating costs, and the
> new registry will be able to use VeriSign Registry's global resolution and
> distribution facilities.

At least we get confirmation now that the new registry being a
non-profit is a part of this deal.

- -- 
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 14:48:44 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New FAQs Posted

On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, at 07:34 [=GMT-0500], Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I agree that the .org issues are clearly policy issues that should be
> decided through the DNSO consensus building process.  In the latest FAQs
> posted by ICANN, that is what will happen.  So there certainly does not seem
> to be an end run around that process.  Also, for such a process to be done
> well, it will take a great deal of time.  But I believe  there is nothing in
> the new .org agreement that anyway bypasses or removes any of the .org
> policy control from ICANN or the community in any significant way unless you
> think these requirements do that: the new registry will be a non-profit
> organization, 

In itself maybe not, but by implication (as in the FAQ), it *is* a
policy issue.

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

> VeriSign cannot be associated with the new registry in any
> way, the new registry needs to begin operation not later than January 1,
> 2003, the new registry will have $5M start-up for operating costs, and the
> new registry will be able to use VeriSign Registry's global resolution and
> distribution facilities.
> 
> Chuck  
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent:	Saturday, March 24, 2001 5:56 AM
> To:	'Gomes, Chuck'; [email-masked]'
> Cc:	[email-masked]'
> Subject:	RE: [ga] New FAQs Posted
> 
> > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 1:34 PM
>  
> > 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.
> 
> Policies according to the original charter for ORG, are almost impossible to
> maintain automagically. You stated this yourself, years ago. I was one of
> those that agreed. In fact, none of the three charters are maintainable nor
> are they scalable. This argument was made in defense of the accusation made,
> against NSI, for allowing erosion of the com/net/org charters. I recall that
> you put forth a defense for having ORG and NET become the overflow for COM,
> as an NSI practice, at that time. This happened on the DOMAIN-POLICY list,
> before ICANN was formed.
> 
> IMNSHO, most of the concern, that I see expressed, comes from a promise to
> redefine, but not having presented the new definition(s). Yet, we are asked
> to accept the new definition, no matter what it is. This is the equivalent
> of buying a pig in a poke-sack. No wonder folks are uneasy about it... duh!
> 
> The whole thing looks like an end-run, around the DNSO and the @large. The
> disturbing thing is that is by-passes a great deal of policy discussion and
> removes some policy control from the ICANN.
> 

- --
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 11:19:57 -0600
From: Eric Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Endorsement/second for Jon Weinberg as chair

3a. Eric Weisberg
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 12:51:41 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Endorsement/second for Jon Weinberg as chair

3a. Michael Froomkin
3b. [email-masked]
3c. Jonathan Weinberg

- --
		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 09:54:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Endorsement/second for Jon Weinberg as chair

> 3a. Patrick Greenwell
> 3b. [email-masked]
> 3c. Jonathan Weinberg

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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 13:20:03 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

So, a comment to both David, others, and Chuck

When one has a contract in place, getting a "clean slate" to start from is
unlikely.  Or so I found in my days of running a healthcare business for
AT&T.  :-)

- -----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 7:45 AM
To: 'DPF'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

David,

To be a little more precise, I would say that the new .com agreement gives
VeriSign some of what it wants.  We certainly did not want to give up .net
and .org.  We certainly did not want to have contractual terms that are less
favorable to us.  We would rather not commit to $205M in costs.  Etc.  But
that is what happens when two parties negotiate.  There is give and take on
each side.  Both sides compromise on some issues to get other things they
think are important.

Chuck

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	DPF [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Saturday, March 24, 2001 4:47 AM
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Re: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 20:16:46 -0500, you wrote:

>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.   

Option B is less vague which is a good thing.  However it is less
vague by effectively giving Verisign what they want (*.com for ever
and keep the registrar business).

On this measure the best contract is one which says we allow Verisign
to do anything they want.  No vagueness at all :-)

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
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 19:22:15 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Endorsement of Patrick Corliss

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 19:20:58 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Endorsement of Patrick Corliss

3a. Full name of the endorser: Marc Schneiders
3b. E-mail address of the endorser: [email-masked]
3c. Full name of the accepted nominee
    you wish to endorse: Patrick Corliss
    (specific statements of endorsements
    may also be submitted and are encouraged:

Patrick Corliss is good at bringing and keeping people together,
qualities essential for a chair of the GA.
His vision of the namespace is large. I like that. It has a future.

)

- --
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 13:47:05 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

One item where I disagree with your interpretation, but I can be wrong..

I don't recall that ICANN was ever in a position to say that every registrar
would be free to have their own dispute resolution policies, based on the
input received in the White Paper process.  I didn't go back and research
it, but if my memory is right,  I believe it was a big issue from the
beginning that there be standard ICANN policies, which all accredited
registrars would adhere to, to prevent forum shopping. Selecting different
resources to implement the standard policies agreed to by ICANN for
accredited registrars is indeed a different thing.

Not dwelt on but worth of note is that there was also much discussion about
the need to hold the registrar and registry "harmless" in these disputes.
Some, perhaps not you, new registrars were very committed to ensuring that
the adopted process prevented their being tied up in endless litigation over
disputed names.  Achieving an ICANN approved policy, which they can
implement, was part of helping to achieve that goal. (Which I personally
strongly support,by the way. I would not want to see registrars in a
position of being drawn into disputes and law suits). 

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 11:39 PM
To: Eric Dierker
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [email-masked]'; [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 13:51:22 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The GA Chair election -- Endorsement

3a. Sotiris Sotiropoulos
3b. [email-masked]
3c. Danny Younger

Danny has displayed a willingness and appetite to
focus and facilitate discussion on the real
problems and issues facing ICANN and the DNSO.  At
this pivotal juncture, the GA requires a
no-nonsense Chair in order to be effective. I
believe Danny is the right person at the right
time. He has my full support.  Good Luck Danny!

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" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 20:15:42 +0100
From: Michael Schneider <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fwd: Considerations on the separation of Registrars and Registries

FYI,
Michael Schneider

>Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 20:09:41 +0100
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Considerations on the separation of Registrars and Registries
>Cc: [...]
>
>Louis et.al.,
>
>I would like to make the following personal statement (i.e. in this case 
>not acting on behalf of the ISPCP nor the NC) to the Board in order to 
>address the issue of separation of Registrars and Registries.
>
>Best regards,
>Michael Schneider
>
>================================ CUT HERE ================================
>
>Considerations on the separation of Registrars and Registries
>
>The provision in section 23 C of the proposed .Com Registry Agreement 
>(sections 3.5.3. of the .Net and .Org Registry Agreements), under which 
>the agreements "shall not preclude an affiliate (including wholly-owned 
>subsidiaries) of Registry Operator from acting as a registrar with respect 
>to the Registry TLD" constitutes in my view (and here I agree with much of 
>the DNSO) a major change in policy which I do not accept.
>
>At and after Melbourne ICANN Staff and Verisign took the position that 
>there was never any such policy, and that it had rather been solely for 
>Verisign to decide if it wished to give up its registry or registrar 
>business. I explicitly reject this position for the following reasons:
>
>1. First the provision calling for the divestment in either the registry 
>or the registrar constitutes at least  as the ICANN staff puts it in its 
>justification of the new agreements  an "attractive incentive to NSI 
>(VeriSign) to complete an ownership separation", apparently so attractive 
>in fact that Verisign has never left any room for doubt that it will 
>accept this requirement in order not to lose the option to extend the 
>contract. Further, in Melbourne Verisign presented the fact that it would 
>have to divest itself of one of the two entities under "Plan A" as a key 
>argument in favour of reaching a quick decision and not allowing further 
>negotiations on "Plan B". To this extent we can take it as a given that 
>under the prevailing agreements we will see a separation of registrar and 
>registry, so that it is essentially irrelevant whether Verisign feels it 
>is legally or only practically forced to do so.
>
>2. This situation led me and others (despite very great reservations) to 
>put aside our concerns about signing the 1999 agreements at that time and 
>to abandon the idea of approaching entities outside ICANN (such as the 
>European Commission) to take action against these agreements. If these are 
>to be abandoned now, some of us might feel compelled to reconsider our 
>original position.
>
>3. ICANN staff is further arguing that the separation of the registry and 
>registrar can be dropped because it was only an "additional protection" 
>and is no longer necessary in the current market situation. To support 
>this argument market data has been published showing that Verisign only 
>has a market share of around 52% in the gTLDs it handles as registry. 
>This, it is claimed, means that the "once-dominant market position [has 
>been] severely eroded". For anyone who has been closely concerned with the 
>deregulation of monopolies  and this is very much an area of interest to 
>ISPs and Connectivity Providers  this is a remarkable conclusion. Figures 
>like these have led in the US and other countries not only to replacing 
>monopolistic structures by competitive ones but also to breaking up the 
>former monopolists into a number of independent entities  frequently with 
>emphasis on prohibiting or permanently impeding suppliers dominating the 
>market in one segment from operating in adjoining market segments. I am 
>unable to understand why this should not be expedient in the 
>registry/registrar business.
>
>I understand and accept, however, that Verisign does not wish to be 
>treated differently from its competitors, which ICANN also intends to 
>allow to have interests simultaneously in a registry and a registrar. To 
>satisfy these justified interests and at the same time the desire of the 
>DNSO not to promote market-dominating positions, I recommend that the 
>Board adopt the following policy:
>
>a) Registries themselves may not also be registrars, unless they split off 
>the registrar business as an independent entity. The registry shall not be 
>allowed to re-insource the registrar business de facto by performing 
>essential technical and administrative functions for the registrar on a 
>contractual basis.
>
>b) If the share of registrations for which a registry is responsible 
>(because it is administering a very important TLD or a number of smaller 
>ones) reaches or exceeds 20% of the registrations calculated for either 
>all gTLDs or all ccTLDs, the registry may not hold an interest of 50% or 
>more or otherwise exercise management control of any registrar.
>
>c) Registrars shall not be entitled to hold an interest of 50% or more in 
>registry operators or otherwise exercise management control of these if
>
>aa) the registry operator administers more than 2,500,000 SLDs or
>bb) the registrar has a market share of more than 50% in one TLD, or more 
>than 25% of all gTLDs, or more than 12.5% in all ccTLDs.

- --
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 14:23:54 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Had ICANN set performace standards rather than command and control I think
that would have done.  It chose to be in control.  And then not to
exercise any quality control.  And to delay its review by a year.  

The worst of all worlds, I'd say.  

On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> One item where I disagree with your interpretation, but I can be wrong..
> 
> I don't recall that ICANN was ever in a position to say that every registrar
> would be free to have their own dispute resolution policies, based on the
> input received in the White Paper process.  I didn't go back and research
> it, but if my memory is right,  I believe it was a big issue from the
> beginning that there be standard ICANN policies, which all accredited
> registrars would adhere to, to prevent forum shopping. Selecting different
> resources to implement the standard policies agreed to by ICANN for
> accredited registrars is indeed a different thing.
> 
> Not dwelt on but worth of note is that there was also much discussion about
> the need to hold the registrar and registry "harmless" in these disputes.
> Some, perhaps not you, new registrars were very committed to ensuring that
> the adopted process prevented their being tied up in endless litigation over
> disputed names.  Achieving an ICANN approved policy, which they can
> implement, was part of helping to achieve that goal. (Which I personally
> strongly support,by the way. I would not want to see registrars in a
> position of being drawn into disputes and law suits). 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 11:39 PM
> To: Eric Dierker
> Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [email-masked]'; [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.
> 
> 

- -- 
		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 11:25:14 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Endorsement/second for Jon Weinberg as chair

3a. William X Walsh
3b. [email-masked]
3c. Jonathan Weinberg

Jonathan's track record as Workgroup C chair was exemplary.  In
perhaps one of the toughest situations, he was able to lead the group
to a consensus that many thought was going to be impossible to
achieve.

He also stood up for that consensus when it was challenged.

These traits are the ones most needed by a DNSO Chair candidate.

- -- 
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 15:08:36 -0500
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Endorsement of  Danny Younger

3a. Full name of the endorser: Kendall Dawson
3b. E-mail address of the endorser: [email-masked]
3c. Full name of the accepted nominee
     you wish to endorse: Danny Younger 

- --
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, 25 Mar 2001 00:02:10 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New FAQs Posted

Dear Mark,
We are quite familiar with this type of enforcement in France because
the AFNIC uses to ask a "K-Bis" to ".fr" registrants. A "K-Bis" is a
document showing you are a business.

1. AFNIC has seveal times documented the cost of such a control.
    But I want to underline that ".fr" is French and the "K-Bis" formula
    is known only to the French. There are 244 countries out there
    and probably 100 pseudo countries (gerillas, etc...). Who will set
    the rules. They do not even succeed in having one interolcutor
    per ccTLD. Will that be again the US ruling the world?

2. The beauty of the French case is that the non-profits are the
     ones which have NOT a K-Bis document. They will have
     publication in the Offcial Paper... in French with very limited
     information whcih may change without having to be published.

3. The general beauty of that stupid proposition is that anyone
     may claim to head a "non declared" non profit association.
     Will iCANN ask the new Registry to hire scores of lawyers
     to investigate the reality of a non declared association in a
     country with a civilian war ?

     I am sure we will never see http://dalai-lama.org !!!

When you see the irrealism of the core of such a proposition and
the seriousness of the study of the side aspetcs you really want
to question the serious of the whole scheme and set-up.

Jefsey

On 22:28 23/03/01, [email-masked] said:
>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

- --
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 #305
************************