Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #310
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, March 26 2001            Volume 01 : Number 310

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

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 03:00:46 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Stability

Eric Dierker wrote:
> 
>The question is simply should we endorse any agreement and thereby give >stakeholder credence to ICANN.  I am sure Mr. Gomez is doing all this >work because he knows a contract is worthless unless it is arguably a >result of the consent of the taxpayer users.

Just like Federal Income Tax, eh?  Based on
Voluntary Compliance, with no actual basis for it
in Law... hmm.  The choice becomes: Vountary
slavery or Enlightened Freedom.  Eric, I will
borrow one of your bylines if I may: EDUCATION AND
OUTREACH!  :-)  

What's the quote on Old Lady Liberty in New York
Harbour..? "Bring me your befuddled masses..." or
something like that?

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
   Individual (who still has a sense of humour)

P.S. If Revenue Canada comes looking for me... you
never seen nor heard of me, right?
- --
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: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 12:04:58 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The American Joke

Dear Eric,
You may over criticize the US Govs. I agree with this Internet definition 
but may be for different reasons:

On 11:35 26/03/01, Eric Dierker said:
>So is it the American Joke; yes!

I feel that in the European diplomat's mouth who coined the phrase, the 
"joke" was not US Gov specific but "American" for a broad range of reasons, 
from NSI to ORSC and iCANN. Ask Chinese if they really care about iCANN. 
Ask me if I care: I resolve for one year on my own cinic-root.

May I recall you that the Internet does not exist. It is a no man's land. 
The Joke is that many people - including yourself through your post - think 
it is American. There is only one key thing: IP addresses. And IPv6 is IMHO 
such a problem that only an international agreement by the ITU/T may 
resolve it.

The rest are details which will change every now and then. The Internet is 
far older than the Web and you do not know about the WebTV routing 5 years 
from now. The DNS is dramatically under used in the iCANN's TLD model. Only 
for that the iCANN cannot survive its current approach. Plan A which is 
still open to various TLD systems could allow iCANN to survive. Plan B 
which is scotched to the "new TLD/UDRP/DN" model which is a terribly 
outdated approach.

BTW, would I be Stratton Sclavos I know what would do: secure .com for 
ever, make .org and .net holders afraid of losing their name, invest M$ 200 
in a new DNS system able to squeeze the iCANN TLD model, hide it behind the 
good of the ".org/.net and .com" community, finance it partly with 
".org/.net" afraid owners subscribing a 10 years plan on which I would pay 
back iCANN M$ 5, break the registrars system in setting up direct resellers 
through my own registrar I would do everything to keep in making iCANN 
believe I will share a triopoly with them (from History I know that 
Triumvirates never survive and that the oldest/largest left in the 
duomvirat loses or abandon: iCANN/DoC/VeriSign will end-up as an agreement 
between VRSN and DoC).

Again, bytes are transported by lines and computers, not by contracts and 
legalities. Everything too complex or too rigid which is not written in the 
machine source code will never survive reality and innovation. The 
constitution and the contracts of the Internet are in the DNS+ and 
protocols source codes. Its use comes from the consensus (not the one voted 
by 2/3 of a few activits, but the real one: the one of the market).

Cheers. Jefsey

>This brings me to the point of the Verisign contract.  Mr. Gomez, you are
>doing a great job.  Unless you convince us this is a good Idea the Versign
>deal might be executed but it is as dead as though there were no Verisign.
>It is a tough business being a private concessionaire doing business with
>the U.S. Gov. through an intermediary.  Tomorrow with a new administration
>you could loose everything.  If you think I speak wrongly ask Thikol,
>Rockwell, U.S. Steel, Jeep.  I think Ross Perot could help in this area.  If
>you own stock in such an endeavor watch it closely.
>
>All of the negative talk about corporate greed is really not helpful and the
>obvious resentment of those who have not gotten the representation they want
>is not relative to the agreements with Verisign.  The question is simply
>should we endorse any agreement and thereby give stakeholder credence to
>ICANN.  I am sure Mr. Gomez is doing all this work because he knows a
>contract is worthless unless it is arguably a result of the consent of the
>taxpayer users.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>--
>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: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:27:56 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

On 2001-03-23 18:22:38 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:

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

Of course there are no explicit or written guarantees.  But then
again, we have that entity named ICANN which is supposed to operate
the DNS' root in a fashion which guarantees the Internet's
stability.  You know, this entity which spent a great deal of effort
in order to make sure that the operators of all the new TLDs we are
going to get are financially stable, and don't just disappear.

I suppose that most will agree that taking away domain names which
were registered and are being used in good faith is the very
opposite of serving the Internet's stability.  DNSO and ICANN
should, I think, agree upon some explicit guidelines or guarantees
concerning this kind of stability ASAP - now that the stability of
existing domains is no longer something we can take for granted.

Also, I'm not sure that using a non-commercial operator for the new
domain or committing to this is something the board can or should do
at this point: First, the question whether or not the operator of a
TLD should be commercial or non-commercial looks like a policy
decision to me. Second, a commercial operator has a huge interest to
keep the current customer base.  A non-commercial operator does not
have that kind of interest...

- -- 
Thomas Roessler			    <[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: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 06:33:07 -0600
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Multilingual names

At 13:07 25/03/2001 -0500, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>On MLN's, of course, you are right. There will need to be modifications in
>the present UDRP to accommodate for different languages, conflicts/overlaps
>between duplicate characters, etc.

There are very few issues wrt IP that are not already present with ASCII 
names; consider the conflict over the Spanish-language site that mirrored 
the name of an English-language site, the conflict over micros0ft.com, the 
conflict between tata (india) and bodacious-tatas.com, and so on.

Just about the only thing I can think of that is added is that it can be 
hard to find panelists who can actually read the characters of the domain 
name; the IP rights do not change.

IMHO, of course.

            harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [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: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 06:28:07 -0600
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Quorum (Re: [ga] CORRECTION!!!)

At 19:27 25/03/2001 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>The salient point here is that THERE IS A QUORUM RULE.  There is a clear
>definition of exactly how many people are participating, how they got
>there, and exactly how many of them it takes pass something.
>
>That is not the case here.

At the moment, the GA Assembly has 291 voting members 
(http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html).

For a resolution, an absolute majority of the members who bother to vote at 
all must support the resolution (no minimum quorum).

For a rule change, a quorum of at least 20% or 100 voters (the smaller of 
the two) is required, and the vote must have at least 2/3 majority.

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html

We have rules.

(I also think that we have rough consensus on the contract issue, as 
Roberto reported. Even if we haven't voted on it yet).

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [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: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 08:03:57 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

I hope that William and Sandy do not mind if I join their two-way dialog.  I
personally believe that they are discussing a very critical issue with
regard to the consensus building process, one that I think needs attention
if we are ever going to create an effective process.

I certainly understand William's points.  You cannot make stakeholders
participate.  But at the same time it does not necessarily follow that lack
of participation means lack of interest or need nor does it mean that the
non-participants are in agreement with the vocal minority.  There are
undoubtedly a large number of alternative explanations for lack of
participation to include lack of awareness, insufficient time, lack of
understanding of what really is at stake, etc.

If we are to be successful in building a truly workable consensus building
process, there are several steps that I believe will be essential: (1)
thorough identification of who the key stakeholders are; (2) outreach to as
many key stakeholders as possible using means that are hopefully workable
for them; (3) educating stakeholders who are open to learning, including
helping them understand possible consequences of pending decisions; (4)
developing methodologies to objectively evaluate level of consensus achieved
and to find creative alternatives when consensus cannot be achieved; (5)
implementing sound documentation procedures of the consensus process.

As I indicated in an earlier post, what I am talking about is far from a
trivial exercise. It will not only require extensive time to develop but
once it is in place it will require extensive time to work through the
process on a given issue.  But if we sincerely want to make policy decisions
that will be the best for the broadest possible audience and for the longest
possible time going forward, it will be worth the effort.  And then I think
we will come close to having a truly bottom-up process.

I understand that none of this is usable with regard to the current issues
of the proposed new VeriSign agreements, but the debate regarding those
agreements seems to clearly illustrate some of the needs as we look to
improvement in the future.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 1:01 AM
To: Sandy Harris
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hello Sandy,

Sunday, March 25, 2001, 9:28:22 PM, Sandy Harris wrote:

> "William X. Walsh" wrote:

>> > Thanks, William. But, actually, not very many people voted, did they?
...
>> 
>> No, the failure to vote means that they have consented to not being
>> taken into account, ...

> Nonsense.

Back this up, then Sandy.  How should non-participation be considered
when deciding what consensus of the GA is?

>> It's a tactic agreement with whatever the result is, since by not
>> participating they have voluntarily given up their right to object to
>> it being the consensus.

> Not voting gives up the right to vote on that issue, nothing more.

And it also means that the declaration of consensus cannot be
invalidated because they want to come along later and declare an
objection once the issue has been sent on.

So please, explain your point.

>> One cannot claim that because people were silent that the consensus is
>> invalid.

> No, but conversely there is no reason to imagine that a vote indicates
> a valid consensus, short of a unanimous vote of all players.

A valid consensus can ONLY be determined based on those that
PARTICIPATE.

So please, again, explain yourself here.

- -- 
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: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 08:41:30 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

>>I understand that none of this is usable with regard to the current issues
of the proposed new VeriSign agreements, but the debate regarding those
agreements seems to clearly illustrate some of the needs as we look to
improvement in the future.

Chuck<<

I agree with Chuck. We, the GA, do need more time in any given question
before us.
It is quite unfair to the GA to be put under a short time frame to make a
informed decision.

A valid consensus can only be determined based on those that participate.
Those who choose not to voice an opinion/vote do so at their own risk.

American voting history shows that in a given public vote on a local issue a
5% to 10% turnout of voters happens. A sad fact of voter apathy. This group
is no different.

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
To: "'William X. Walsh'" <[email-masked]>; "Sandy Harris"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 7:03 AM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

I hope that William and Sandy do not mind if I join their two-way dialog.  I
personally believe that they are discussing a very critical issue with
regard to the consensus building process, one that I think needs attention
if we are ever going to create an effective process.

I certainly understand William's points.  You cannot make stakeholders
participate.  But at the same time it does not necessarily follow that lack
of participation means lack of interest or need nor does it mean that the
non-participants are in agreement with the vocal minority.  There are
undoubtedly a large number of alternative explanations for lack of
participation to include lack of awareness, insufficient time, lack of
understanding of what really is at stake, etc.

If we are to be successful in building a truly workable consensus building
process, there are several steps that I believe will be essential: (1)
thorough identification of who the key stakeholders are; (2) outreach to as
many key stakeholders as possible using means that are hopefully workable
for them; (3) educating stakeholders who are open to learning, including
helping them understand possible consequences of pending decisions; (4)
developing methodologies to objectively evaluate level of consensus achieved
and to find creative alternatives when consensus cannot be achieved; (5)
implementing sound documentation procedures of the consensus process.

As I indicated in an earlier post, what I am talking about is far from a
trivial exercise. It will not only require extensive time to develop but
once it is in place it will require extensive time to work through the
process on a given issue.  But if we sincerely want to make policy decisions
that will be the best for the broadest possible audience and for the longest
possible time going forward, it will be worth the effort.  And then I think
we will come close to having a truly bottom-up process.

I understand that none of this is usable with regard to the current issues
of the proposed new VeriSign agreements, but the debate regarding those
agreements seems to clearly illustrate some of the needs as we look to
improvement in the future.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 1:01 AM
To: Sandy Harris
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hello Sandy,

Sunday, March 25, 2001, 9:28:22 PM, Sandy Harris wrote:

> "William X. Walsh" wrote:

>> > Thanks, William. But, actually, not very many people voted, did they?
...
>>
>> No, the failure to vote means that they have consented to not being
>> taken into account, ...

> Nonsense.

Back this up, then Sandy.  How should non-participation be considered
when deciding what consensus of the GA is?

>> It's a tactic agreement with whatever the result is, since by not
>> participating they have voluntarily given up their right to object to
>> it being the consensus.

> Not voting gives up the right to vote on that issue, nothing more.

And it also means that the declaration of consensus cannot be
invalidated because they want to come along later and declare an
objection once the issue has been sent on.

So please, explain your point.

>> One cannot claim that because people were silent that the consensus is
>> invalid.

> No, but conversely there is no reason to imagine that a vote indicates
> a valid consensus, short of a unanimous vote of all players.

A valid consensus can ONLY be determined based on those that
PARTICIPATE.

So please, again, explain yourself here.

- --
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

- --
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: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 12:20:27 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ccTLD contracts

Hi! I would like to point out another contract problem created by Staff 
wich is related to Plan B as it is part of the iCANN TLD model enforcement.

This is the Trilateral ccTLD contract. The iCANN wants for many surprising 
reasons to involve Govs in the ccTLD contracts. They have therefore 
proposed two solutions (please Peter de Blanc to correct me if I am wrong) 
based upon the response to a letter they should send to the Govs (as if 
your kids were sending a letter to  your boss asking if you do a good job).

- - either the Gov is not interested and there is a two sided contract 
between the iCANN and the ccTLD manager
- - or the Gov is interested and there is a trilateral contract: iCANN, Gov 
and TLD manager.

The letter is a very poor move. So obviously ccTLDs prefer - if it is 
necessary -  that they send the letter. But IMHO the real problem is: did 
you see Govs signing easily "contracts". As much as Govs do not advise but 
govern, thet do not use to sign contracts but treaties.

I though it could shed a new light on what Staff is trying to achieve. IMHO 
an uncesserary quick to be forgotten monument to solve inadequately the 
problem they create. I may be wrong: but I am not so sure about it.

Jefsey

  that the letter is hurting and sometimes very poor business - the phrase 
"American Joke" quoted by Eric was actually refering to the situation 
created by this letter. 

- --
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: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 07:50:42 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Quorum (Re: [ga] CORRECTION!!!)

On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 06:28:07AM -0600, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> At 19:27 25/03/2001 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >The salient point here is that THERE IS A QUORUM RULE.  There is a clear
> >definition of exactly how many people are participating, how they got
> >there, and exactly how many of them it takes pass something.
> >
> >That is not the case here.
> 
> At the moment, the GA Assembly has 291 voting members 
> (http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html).
> 
> For a resolution, an absolute majority of the members who bother to vote at 
> all must support the resolution (no minimum quorum).

Yes, my apologies: I suppose that you could call a rule that said that
there was no quorum requirement a "quorum rule".  But it is degenerate
to the point of uselessness.  

I use the word "useless" to describe the "rule", because under this
"rule", precisely one voter can pass a resolution, and no reasonable
person from the NC or the Board or anywhere else is going to give any
weight whatsoever to a "resolution" supported only by a single vote.

Therefore, one still must go back and analyze any vote to determine the
level of support it had, to decide if the result should be given any
weight.  Hence the "rule" has no significance.

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

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

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 12:09:28 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> > A vote can be a useful means of measuring support for a position, one of
> > the inputs to the discussion. That is all it can be in this context.
> 
> What vote are you talking about?

Any General Assembly or Working Group vote.
- --
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: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 10:51:32 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> I understand that none of this is usable with regard to the current issues
> of the proposed new VeriSign agreements, but the debate regarding those
> agreements seems to clearly illustrate some of the needs as we look to
> improvement in the future.

Agreed. One of the things that the NC will consider shortly is the report of
WG-D, which provided a number of suggestions on what a consensus document
should look like. 

Also, on the issue of voting and gauging consensus on the Verisign
agreement, a lot of discussions are going on in parallel. Personally, I gave
my views to my NC representative within my constituency, but did not vote in
the recent GA polls. I suspect others may have done the same. In retrospect,
I probably should have voted here too.

    -- Bret

- --
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: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 12:51:03 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

Sotiris, Marilyn and all remaining assembly members,

  Marilyn, I have to agree with everything in Sotiris's post in response to you.
As you know you and I have agreed on several issues in the recent past
put forth on this forum.  But I don't see any need in carrying this exchange
into a personal dispute.  You KNOW you represent AT&T on this forum
in one form or another.  And that is just fine with me, as it seem to be
with others.  But don't try to obscure your perceived importance in your
comments on this forum as being only your own, unless you indicate
as such.

  Ignoring question posed, as Sotiris stated below is indeed rude, unprofessional,
and inconsiderate, unless they are of a personal nature.  The ICANN BoD
has made a practice of ignoring questions posed on this and other forums,
as well a directly.  You have as well, far to often in your capacity as a
AT&T representative.

  Until recently I was a AT&T stock owner.  I sold the remaining shares I
had in AT&T because of the companies poor performance of the past
year+.  I see that AT&T management is getting worse rather than better.
It's stock price has plummeted and AT&T has cut it's dividend twice in the
past 18 months.  This shows to me that their ability to make good business
decisions is very questionable.  It seems that a significant of long time
AT&T owners are in agreement with this analysis.  I see this as a gross
indication that AT&T's ability to make good business decisions in their own
market, as poor.  This would seem to reflect directly on any representation
that AT&T has on the ICANN process as well...

Sotiropoulos wrote:

> "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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 12:07:33 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New FAQs Posted

Chuck and all remaining assembly members,

  Well Chuck, the problem here is that the "NEw DEal" contract negotiations
should have from the beginning been inclusive of the parties affected or
potentially
affected, or their representatives (DNSO GA, Constituencies, and the @large).
This was not done.  Second, no contract should have been considered prior
to ALL parties effected (Including .ORG and .NET DN holders, especially).
This also was not done.  Third, Verisign/NSI and it seems also the ICANN
BoD and staff, are saying that there are ONLY two choices, the existing
contract, or the "New Deal" contract.  This also is being considered as
NOT EXCEPTABLE as well.

  As a result and the fact that individual DN holders/stakeholders are not
represented within ICANN at this time, the potential claim of any consensus
for either contract is dubious at best, and IMHO not present.

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.
>
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:58:35 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New FAQs Posted

Roeland, Chuck and all remaining assembly members,

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> > 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.

  I remember this as Roeland states here also, quite clearly.

>
>
> 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!

  Exactly!  And this is inconsistent with good practice as well as good policy
making, unless you already know in advance, or suspect that such a policy
change is not going to be met well by those effected by such a policy
change.  It is underhanded, unfair, and illegitimate...

>
>
> 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.

  The ICANN BoD has made a fairly regular practice of conducting its
business in this manner almost from the get-go.  As such, trust has fallen
off rather dramatically.

>
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 21:04:47 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

William,

>
>I don't see it as representative of the consensus of the GA.
>
>It implies that the GA thinks a change in the policy for .org IS
>something that should be considered provided that existing registrants
>aren't required to give up their names.

Maybe my perception of the consensus has been wrong, but what I have 
registered is a lot of people that were complaining about the possibility 
that current .org registrations could have been evicted, but not a lot of 
people clearly affirming that the charter of .org shall not be changed.
Moreover, the very fact that people are expressing their worries about the 
eviction from .org *implies* that they estimate possible that a charter can 
be enforced.

>
>I haven't seen any such consensus here on that, nor do I think that
>statement is appropriate or reflective of the sense of the GA.

Nowhere I said that there was consensus on changing the charter.
I only stated that, should the charter be changed, there's consensus that 
the current bona-fide registrations be kept.
In all fairness, this is what I understood.

Nevertheless, we are now discussing just the VeriSign contract: there will 
still be time to discuss explicitely about the possibility of a new charter 
for .org, and following that discussion, a straw poll and/or a vote can be 
called. Incidentally, my personal opinion is also that the charter shall not 
be changed, as I stated in a couple of posts: but my own opinion and the 
posts of few other people that expressed similar positions is, IMHO, not 
sufficient to call it a consensus. We have enough problems with the people 
that estimate that 24 to 2 is not consensus enough, you can imagine the 
reactions to a consensus call that was more dubious.

The main message this time was the favour to option A, and the reasons 
thereof. This is on record now. The management of .org can be discussed if 
option B prevails.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #310
************************