Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #307
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, March 25 2001            Volume 01 : Number 307

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

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 23:47:04 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Is there really a need to be so....negative about an individual posting I've
made? I do take offense to the assertion that my postings are about
corporate greed. I spend a lot of time on the list, and do it, often, as you
do, at the expense of other business interests, because i think this is
important.

I don't appreciate at all your last posting. It is also rather
unprofessional... which isn't really like you at all. 

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 9:33 PM
To: William X. Walsh
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

"William X. Walsh" wrote:
> 
> I don't think anyone is worried about anything, Marilyn.

William, what Marilyn is not telling us is that
*she* and others like her are worried.  Actually,
it's not really Marilyn per se, she's just another
instrument and mouthpiece for corporate greed, as
is Chuck Gomes and the rest of them.  Don't kill
or maim the messengers, but do examine the
message...  

So, what are they worried about? 

Check out http://www.att.org and see...  The good
rabbis are selling software titles and I'll bet
the upstanding folks at http://www.att.com get no
cut from the proceeds.  If that's not enough,
check out http://www.amazon.org/ and see that
there's no books being sold there... not eve
interest titles!  But, just skip on over to
http://www.nike.org and see what you'll find! 
Surprise, surprise... Do you think Nike will lose
their .ORG, or will ever be unable to meet a
higher payment requirement?  

All of this hoopla for .ORG is just a smokescreen
for the Corporate world to further their
anti-competitive culture/influence in another
TLD... one that most of the biggies initially
overlooked!  But, in the spirit of true NSI
favouritism, Verisign is willing to take up their
fight!  This ploy is transparent.   
 
> A change in .org policy is trying to solve a problem that does not
> exist, and doing so with an inappropriate solution.

Not inappropriate... diabolical!
 
> 2 million domain holders are not insignificant, no matter how you cut
> it.  Your view that they are is frankly amazing to me.  One that makes
> me really question your objectivity.  And if I remember correctly, the
> number is actually higher and growing at a VERY rapid rate.

Marc Schneider already has my support.  He's the
first to move on this, let's get behind him and
organize NOW! visit: http://www.disgrace.org
 
> So you think creating an exclusive namespace for organization you deem
> to be worthy of being in an exclusive non-profit TLD that charges an
> arm and a leg for registrations is more important than the existing
> rights of over 2,000,000 REAL domain name registrants?

Considering the true motives...
 
> If that's what you truly think, then I must question your credibility.

I'm glad you said this, and not I.

Sincerely,

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

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

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 00:34:23 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:
> 
> Is there really a need to be so....negative about an individual > posting I've made? I do take offense to the assertion that my postings > are about corporate greed. 

Marilyn, please don't take that tack with me. 
Frankly, I'm offended that you'd even attempt to
reduce this to a personal issue, but... I'm not
surprised. It's not personal Marilyn... it's about
business, and you do represent certain interests
<period>.  My soccer coach once told me to "always
watch the ball, never the person... always follow
the ball!" Well Marilyn, I'm following the ball
and not you.  Heck, if it weren't you personally,
it would just be somebody else...  So please,
don't be offended. 

> I spend a lot of time on the list, and do it, often, as you do, at    > the expense of other business interests, because i think this is    > important.

Marilyn, let's be honest, you're not here because
you enjoy being here... you're not here because
you'd rather do this than spend time with your
family/loved one(s).  You are here as a Business
Constituency representative via your position at
AT&T, and also as a Names Council Member.  Of a
certainty, you always carefully consider what you
write to the List in light of your position(s). 
Probably, about the the only thing you don't weigh
carefully in this regard is the font you choose to
type in.  Now, all this aside, are you going to
answer the question posed by William Walsh or not?
==================
> Michael, that's the critique. Where's the "here's what i can do to
> contribute to a solution?" Or do you only critique? 

> and if that is the case, then who offers solutions?

This presumes that there is a problem that needs a
solution.

What exactly is the problem, Marilyn?
==================
It's been a couple hours since William asked his
question, yet you have chosen to respond to other
posts in the interim.  This reminds me of certain
other questions you have evaded, such as Joop's
recurring question of "creating a super Name
Holders constituency (9 seats), to be balanced by
an ISP/IP/registrar/registry industry (9 seats)
with an elected Chair as casting vote."  A
question he's repeated often enough in the past
few months (since January!).  In fact, you have
not even acknowledged it.

> I don't appreciate at all your last posting. It is also rather
> unprofessional... which isn't really like you at all.

Well, to be honest, I don't appreciate a lot of
things people do... like ignoring questions.  I
think it's very unprofessional for someone to
ignore legitimate questions and evade issues,
especially on such important matters, and most
especially when they are in positions of power and
responsibility.  That's my opinion, and I believe
I'm entitled to it.  In the GA, I'm just another
unrepresented individual who's incensed at what is
going on (and our numbers are growing).

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	sans affiliation
- --
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 00:43:16 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] errata

I stand corrected (by myself). Marilyn Cade is not
a Names Council Member.  But, she is a Business
Constituency representative for AT&T.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
- --
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 00:55:57 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

It appears to me the DNSO has not defined
what "representation" actually is and how it is to be seen as valid.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

Hello Dassa,
This sounds to me like you want DNSO to interfere with internal procedures
at companies like AT & T , to ensure their accountability to their employees
and customers and commonality of representation within DNSO, by some form of
formalized structure.  I hope not. Representatives, whether from groups of
big business, associations, small business, public policy groups,
individuals etc., can only be validated by the interest they take in DNSO,
and not by the affairs of other corporations that are of no concern to
ICANN. Yet again, the solution can be found in reforming the existing
constituency structure to include proper representation for individuals and
small business, amongst other groups.

The issue here is not about what is, or what is not, valid representation,
but it is about DNSO's unrealistic expectations that it could function under
the existing structure. If a representative turns up and participates, I
suggest they are valid, but for whatever reason, DNSO has imposed artificial
limitations on the choices available for representation. If an interested
person is an employee of AT & T or a customer of DHS, and does not support
the policies that Marilyn or your good self are advocating, albeit in good
faith, that person has three choices. Ignore you, oust you from your role,
or find another representative outside of AT & T or DHS. Defining
representation does not assist a person in finding a representative that
does not exist or is not affordable.

DNSO should not be concerned with the quality of any particular
representative, in terms of how much emphasis they may or may not place on
advocating policies that are in the best interests of their employees and
customers. That would be an internal matter for Marilyn and your good self
to deal with as you each see fit and I have no doubt that both of you do the
best you can in the circumstances, in your own ways. It is the sheer volume
of employees and customers represented by large corporations, over whom DNSO
can have no quality control, that is of most concern. The remedy is simple.
Provide a completely separate and affordable option for those people to be
represented within DNSO, and on an equal footing. I would add only that it
is a disgrace that DNSO has not addressed this issue to date.

Sincerely,
Joanna

- --
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 16:20:46 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, 25 March 2001 3:56 PM
|> To: [email-masked]; Ga
|> Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN
|>
|>
|> It appears to me the DNSO has not defined
|> what "representation" actually is and how it is to be seen as valid.
|>
|> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
|>
|> Hello Dassa,
|> This sounds to me like you want DNSO to interfere with internal procedures
|> at companies like AT & T , to ensure their accountability to their employees
|> and customers and commonality of representation within DNSO, by some form of
|> formalized structure.  I hope not. Representatives, whether from groups of
|> big business, associations, small business, public policy groups,
|> individuals etc., can only be validated by the interest they take in DNSO,
|> and not by the affairs of other corporations that are of no concern to
|> ICANN. Yet again, the solution can be found in reforming the existing
|> constituency structure to include proper representation for individuals and
|> small business, amongst other groups.

No, I do not advocate interfering with any organisation.  However, where such
representation is given weight by the DNSO, what that representation actually is
does need to be clearly understood.  To give representives from organisations
additional weight in any discussions requires their actual representation to be
validated.  There is often reference made to such representation as providing
high numbers of participation.  I contend that unless the representation is
clearly understood we can not assume such participation.

|> The issue here is not about what is, or what is not, valid representation,
|> but it is about DNSO's unrealistic expectations that it could function under
|> the existing structure. If a representative turns up and participates, I
|> suggest they are valid, but for whatever reason, DNSO has imposed artificial
|> limitations on the choices available for representation. If an interested
|> person is an employee of AT & T or a customer of DHS, and does not support
|> the policies that Marilyn or your good self are advocating, albeit in good
|> faith, that person has three choices. Ignore you, oust you from your role,
|> or find another representative outside of AT & T or DHS. Defining
|> representation does not assist a person in finding a representative that
|> does not exist or is not affordable.

True, individuals may participate in any way they deem fit.  One of the issues I
am exploring here is how much value is associated with such representatives
within the DNSO.  Can we truly say there are so many participants in the process
when we do not have a clear understanding of the procedures representatives
employ within their member structures to ensure participation and to be truly
representative of their members.  To my mind, assigning a proxy vote does not
imply participation.

|> DNSO should not be concerned with the quality of any particular
|> representative, in terms of how much emphasis they may or may not place on
|> advocating policies that are in the best interests of their employees and
|> customers. That would be an internal matter for Marilyn and your good self
|> to deal with as you each see fit and I have no doubt that both of you do the
|> best you can in the circumstances, in your own ways. It is the sheer volume
|> of employees and customers represented by large corporations, over whom DNSO
|> can have no quality control, that is of most concern. The remedy is simple.
|> Provide a completely separate and affordable option for those people to be
|> represented within DNSO, and on an equal footing. I would add only that it
|> is a disgrace that DNSO has not addressed this issue to date.

I tend to feel representatives of larger groups are given too much weight and
that they should be considered on a par with individuals.  For the DNSO to place
higher value on such representation without clearly defining the reasoning is of
concern to me.  To me, the DNSO should be advocating higher direct participation
and enabling individuals to have an equal say.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

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

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

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 09:49:36 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Marylin,
>
>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.

Off my memory, when the applications for the new TLDs were collected, one of 
the information the applicant Registries had to provide was their dispute 
resolution policy.
This, IMHO, hinted the possibility of having different mechanisms for 
different registries: otherwise, ICANN should have stated since the 
beginning that everybody had to adopt UDRP.
Even in the discussion about the individual applications, the point never 
came up (incidentally, unlike the failure to separate Registry and 
Registrar, that was criticized for IOD's .web).

I still think that it will be a *good thing* to have different policies for 
different TLDs. In a multicultural, complex world the "one size fits all" is 
indeed often a simple solution, but seldom the best one.

Regards
Roberto

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 04:01:45 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

|> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch. wrote:-
|To give representives from organisations
additional weight in any discussions requires their actual representation to
be
validated.  There is often reference made to such representation as
providing
high numbers of participation.  I contend that unless the representation is
clearly understood we can not assume such participation.

[Joanna]- I agree with you that high numbers of participation cannot be
assumed unless there is full knowledge of how each representative refers to
others within their organization, but equally, we cannot expect DNSO to
police the internal affairs of others to ensure compliance with some
arbitrary standard for day to day operating procedures. Applied globally,
the mind boggles. Added to which, members of a particular organization may
decide their representative should have carte blanche on all substantive
issues, then what. The question is, what evidence of participation can
possibly be stipulated as a requirement for those purporting to represent
high numbers? I cannot think of any that could not be concocted or fudged,
which amounts to status quo. Perhaps you have a solution that I missed?

|> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch. wrote:-
True, individuals may participate in any way they deem fit.

[Joanna] It would be great if true, but individuals have no means to
participate in a meaningful way. I contend that if they did, DNSO would not
use numerical values of a group to determine the weight and value of it's
representative's discussions, hence some concerns expressed here would
evaporate in the process.

|> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch. wrote:-
One of the issues I am exploring here is how much value is associated with
such representatives
within the DNSO.  Can we truly say there are so many participants in the
process
when we do not have a clear understanding of the procedures representatives
employ within their member structures to ensure participation and to be
truly
representative of their members.  To my mind, assigning a proxy vote does
not
imply participation.

[Joanna] In my capacity as WG-Review member and Editor of
http://www.internetstakeholders.com, I would be most interested to have a
copy of this data when available. But it's not just analysis of member
structures of organizations that is needed, it goes all the way to the
bottom, involving corporate structures, and analysis of procedures they
employ to elicit feedback on issues from their customer base, employees and
smaller subsidiary business, all of whom have a stake.

| The remedy is simple.
|> Provide a completely separate and affordable option for those people to
be
|> represented within DNSO, and on an equal footing. I would add only that
it
|> is a disgrace that DNSO has not addressed this issue to date.

|> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch. wrote:-
I tend to feel representatives of larger groups are given too much weight
and
that they should be considered on a par with individuals.  For the DNSO to
place
higher value on such representation without clearly defining the reasoning
is of
concern to me.  To me, the DNSO should be advocating higher direct
participation
and enabling individuals to have an equal say.

I agree. It's worrying and I question whether any group can represent the
best interests of both their customer base and employees. After all, one
pays the salary of the other and that would appear to be a conflict of
interest.

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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 11:36:02 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Marylin,

>
>-- 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.

What's wrong in letting .org alone, and and work within the ICANN 
process/policy development process to undertake to develop the policy for *a 
future TLD dedicated to non-commercial organizations*?
From what I understand, this is already the orientation in the non-com 
constituency, and already some time ago there has been discussion there 
about the proposal of such a TLD (.ngo was proposed as an example).
Frankly, I think that this discussion about the future of .org is a little 
out of place for the time being: it assumes that a decision for option B has 
already been taken by the Board ;>)

>--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. :-)

See above.
Why should we open the can of worms of changing the charter en-route, 
artificially creating the problem of the existing registrations (or the 
coexistence of organizations fulfilling the charter and not) instead of 
having a brand new TLD?
Somebody can give me a reason? - other than that the ICANN Staff and/or 
VeriSign has already decided so ;>)

>--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?

I guess that Marc's point was that if additional effort is required in 
checking adherence to the charter and qualifications of the applicant 
registrant, the cost of the registration process is expected to rise, and 
hence the price of a domain name.
Of course, we may think of a different model, where the cost of the initial 
registration is higher, but the renewal fee is lower.

Best regards
Roberto

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 11:40:21 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New FAQs Posted

Chuck,

>...  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.

That seems a tautology to me :>o

Roberto
(wasting the third post of the day on irrelevant issues)

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 12:16:19 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Philip,

I am few minutes late, as I did not take into account daylight savings time 
:<(
Please find below the report from the GA.

Regards
Roberto

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

After thorough discussion, the GA has shown rough consensus in favour to 
option A, i.e. to keep the current contract.

A straw poll conducted between the 15 and 20 March has given the following 
results:
- - 24 in favour of the current contract (option A)
- - 2 in favour of the new contract (option B)
- - 1 neither of the above

The reasons for the choice, as expressed by some participants, are mainly:

1) "horizontal" separation between Registrar and Registry, foreseen in 
option A, is perceived as a better deal than "vertical" separation among 
TLDs, and a better safeguard against a monopolistic position.

2) The switchover to option B is perceived as a change in policy, done 
without previous consultation of the DNSO (whose mission is to provide 
recommandations on policy), and moreover within very strict deadlines, 
absolutely inappropriate to evaluate in depth the implications of such 
change. For instance, some of the details of the new proposal, like some 
attachments, are still unknown at time of writing. Also, this change in 
policy is considered irreversible.

3) The financial advantages for the Internet community of option B are not 
balancing off the drawbacks above, as it is understood that the investment 
will be done by VeriSign at its discretion, based on a commercial logic that 
is perfectly legitimate but out of the control of the Internet community. 
The benefits for the Internet community are therefore not identifiable at 
this point in time, and it may be even assumed that other competing 
operators might invest comparable amounts of money in the infrastructure as 
well, if granted similar contracts by ICANN.

4) The other claimed advantage of option B, i.e. a different management of 
.org, is minimal in value if of any value at all, because years of practice 
of sale of names without enforcement of the original charter have 
irreversibly altered the content of .org

Moreover, should a charter be enforced by ICANN and/or agreed with the .org 
registry (and this regardless on whether the registry changes owner, i.e. 
independently from option A or B being chosen), the GA is opposed to any 
action to cancel existing registrations. Any action of this type would be 
contrary to the legitimate interest of bona-fide owners of .org names.

Roberto Gaetano
GA Chairman

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 06:49:53 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New FAQs Posted

Roberto,

It is not too difficult to implement and operate a manual screening process
for a small number of names.  Relatively speaking it is still more costly
and time consuming per name.  But as the volume of registrations increases,
it is extremely difficult to continue to expand manual processes to
accommodate the growth.  That is exactly what happened with .org and .net.
Manual processes do not scale well.

Chuck

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Sunday, March 25, 2001 4:40 AM
To:	[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc:	[email-masked]
Subject:	RE: [ga] New FAQs Posted

Chuck,

>...  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.

That seems a tautology to me :>o

Roberto
(wasting the third post of the day on irrelevant issues)

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 07:11:42 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Would you define "obligations to share holders as corporate greed?"   If we
are comparing capitalistic approaches to more socialistic approaches, take a
look at which have fared better in the world's economies.  Neither is
perfect, but economic systems with real incentives for business have tended
to fare much better.  I suspect that that is why economies all over the
globe have been moving toward systems that are more market driven.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 9:33 PM
To: William X. Walsh
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

"William X. Walsh" wrote:
>
> I don't think anyone is worried about anything, Marilyn.

William, what Marilyn is not telling us is that
*she* and others like her are worried.  Actually,
it's not really Marilyn per se, she's just another
instrument and mouthpiece for corporate greed, as
is Chuck Gomes and the rest of them.  Don't kill
or maim the messengers, but do examine the
message... 

So, what are they worried about?

Check out http://www.att.org and see...  The good
rabbis are selling software titles and I'll bet
the upstanding folks at http://www.att.com get no
cut from the proceeds.  If that's not enough,
check out http://www.amazon.org/ and see that
there's no books being sold there... not eve
interest titles!  But, just skip on over to
http://www.nike.org and see what you'll find!
Surprise, surprise... Do you think Nike will lose
their .ORG, or will ever be unable to meet a
higher payment requirement? 

All of this hoopla for .ORG is just a smokescreen
for the Corporate world to further their
anti-competitive culture/influence in another
TLD... one that most of the biggies initially
overlooked!  But, in the spirit of true NSI
favouritism, Verisign is willing to take up their
fight!  This ploy is transparent.  

> A change in .org policy is trying to solve a problem that does not
> exist, and doing so with an inappropriate solution.

Not inappropriate... diabolical!

> 2 million domain holders are not insignificant, no matter how you cut
> it.  Your view that they are is frankly amazing to me.  One that makes
> me really question your objectivity.  And if I remember correctly, the
> number is actually higher and growing at a VERY rapid rate.

Marc Schneider already has my support.  He's the
first to move on this, let's get behind him and
organize NOW! visit: http://www.disgrace.org

> So you think creating an exclusive namespace for organization you deem
> to be worthy of being in an exclusive non-profit TLD that charges an
> arm and a leg for registrations is more important than the existing
> rights of over 2,000,000 REAL domain name registrants?

Considering the true motives...

> If that's what you truly think, then I must question your credibility.

I'm glad you said this, and not I.

Sincerely,

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

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

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 07:06:08 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

I would like to thank Roberto Gaetano, for the GA Position paper. He has
worked very hard on this, in a very short time frame. He has expressed the
feeling of the GA as a whole.

/Bruce James
GA Voting Member

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 4:16 AM
Subject: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Philip,

I am few minutes late, as I did not take into account daylight savings time
:<(
Please find below the report from the GA.

Regards
Roberto

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

After thorough discussion, the GA has shown rough consensus in favour to
option A, i.e. to keep the current contract.

A straw poll conducted between the 15 and 20 March has given the following
results:
- - 24 in favour of the current contract (option A)
- - 2 in favour of the new contract (option B)
- - 1 neither of the above

The reasons for the choice, as expressed by some participants, are mainly:

1) "horizontal" separation between Registrar and Registry, foreseen in
option A, is perceived as a better deal than "vertical" separation among
TLDs, and a better safeguard against a monopolistic position.

2) The switchover to option B is perceived as a change in policy, done
without previous consultation of the DNSO (whose mission is to provide
recommandations on policy), and moreover within very strict deadlines,
absolutely inappropriate to evaluate in depth the implications of such
change. For instance, some of the details of the new proposal, like some
attachments, are still unknown at time of writing. Also, this change in
policy is considered irreversible.

3) The financial advantages for the Internet community of option B are not
balancing off the drawbacks above, as it is understood that the investment
will be done by VeriSign at its discretion, based on a commercial logic that
is perfectly legitimate but out of the control of the Internet community.
The benefits for the Internet community are therefore not identifiable at
this point in time, and it may be even assumed that other competing
operators might invest comparable amounts of money in the infrastructure as
well, if granted similar contracts by ICANN.

4) The other claimed advantage of option B, i.e. a different management of
.org, is minimal in value if of any value at all, because years of practice
of sale of names without enforcement of the original charter have
irreversibly altered the content of .org

Moreover, should a charter be enforced by ICANN and/or agreed with the .org
registry (and this regardless on whether the registry changes owner, i.e.
independently from option A or B being chosen), the GA is opposed to any
action to cancel existing registrations. Any action of this type would be
contrary to the legitimate interest of bona-fide owners of .org names.

Roberto Gaetano
GA Chairman

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

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 09:35:21 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

I certainly don't know whether it reflects the GA as a whole, but it seems
to reflect the views of most of the minority of the GA who participated in
the debate the past few weeks.  The straw pole itself only represents about
10% of the GA list and it was taken before a lot of useful discussion
occurred.

BTW, I also want to thank Roberto for his efforts.  And I want to thank all
of you who contributed to what I consider to be a very constructive dialog
on these issues.

Chuck

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Bruce James [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Sunday, March 25, 2001 8:06 AM
To:	[email-masked]; Roberto Gaetano
Cc:	[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject:	Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

I would like to thank Roberto Gaetano, for the GA Position paper. He has
worked very hard on this, in a very short time frame. He has expressed the
feeling of the GA as a whole.

/Bruce James
GA Voting Member

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 4:16 AM
Subject: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Philip,

I am few minutes late, as I did not take into account daylight savings time
:<(
Please find below the report from the GA.

Regards
Roberto

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

After thorough discussion, the GA has shown rough consensus in favour to
option A, i.e. to keep the current contract.

A straw poll conducted between the 15 and 20 March has given the following
results:
- - 24 in favour of the current contract (option A)
- - 2 in favour of the new contract (option B)
- - 1 neither of the above

The reasons for the choice, as expressed by some participants, are mainly:

1) "horizontal" separation between Registrar and Registry, foreseen in
option A, is perceived as a better deal than "vertical" separation among
TLDs, and a better safeguard against a monopolistic position.

2) The switchover to option B is perceived as a change in policy, done
without previous consultation of the DNSO (whose mission is to provide
recommandations on policy), and moreover within very strict deadlines,
absolutely inappropriate to evaluate in depth the implications of such
change. For instance, some of the details of the new proposal, like some
attachments, are still unknown at time of writing. Also, this change in
policy is considered irreversible.

3) The financial advantages for the Internet community of option B are not
balancing off the drawbacks above, as it is understood that the investment
will be done by VeriSign at its discretion, based on a commercial logic that
is perfectly legitimate but out of the control of the Internet community.
The benefits for the Internet community are therefore not identifiable at
this point in time, and it may be even assumed that other competing
operators might invest comparable amounts of money in the infrastructure as
well, if granted similar contracts by ICANN.

4) The other claimed advantage of option B, i.e. a different management of
.org, is minimal in value if of any value at all, because years of practice
of sale of names without enforcement of the original charter have
irreversibly altered the content of .org

Moreover, should a charter be enforced by ICANN and/or agreed with the .org
registry (and this regardless on whether the registry changes owner, i.e.
independently from option A or B being chosen), the GA is opposed to any
action to cancel existing registrations. Any action of this type would be
contrary to the legitimate interest of bona-fide owners of .org names.

Roberto Gaetano
GA Chairman

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

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

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
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 #307
************************