Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #315
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, March 28 2001          Volume 01 : Number 315

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

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 22:44:52 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ORG  STRAW POLL

On 08:11 27/03/01 -0800, Eric Dierker said:
>Joop, thank you for this hard work.  I would prefer that all the questions
begin
>"are you in favor of". I become squimish about counting how things feel.
>

Eric and all,

I have taken out the "feel". :-)

But the three questions are up in the Booth for a 4 day straw poll added to
the previous straw poll that is still open.
Additional suggestions for further Poll questions are welcome.

Please go and vote at www.democracy.org.nz/vote1

The GA needs to say someting about this subject.

- --joop 

The Polling Booth
http://www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --
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: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:42:54 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[8]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

William,

>
> > If I had the wrong perception, I apologize.
> > On one point though I insist: the focus of the current debate was on 
>option
> > A vs. option B, not the change of the charter. To make a consensus call 
>on
> > something that was not stated as the subject of the debate (even if it 
>has
> > implications) can be exposed to criticism and dilute the value of the
> > position on the main statement.
>
>I disagree. The FAQ clearly shows that the issue of .org's charter was
>an integral part of the talks between the two parties, and that makes
>it very much a part of the discussion of this agreement.
>
>The decision to turn it over to a non-profit entity appears to be a
>final decision if Plan B is approved, according to the staff answers
>in the FAQ.
>
>That was why everyone was pushing for a strong statement on that as a
>part of the comments of this agreement.
>

I have spent some time in going again through the 587 messages from 
2001-03-08 to 2001-03-25, when I have sent the report.

I might have overlooked something for the second time, but my findings are 
the following:

In favour of the change of the charter of .org: 0

Against the change of the charter of .org (not just opposition to evict 
current names): 7 - details of the messages follows
Marc Schneiders (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00874.html)
William X. Walsh (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00877.html)
Jefsey Morfin (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01003.html)
Kendall Dawson (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01019.html)
DPF (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01021.html)
Roberto Gaetano (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01072.html)
Andy Gardner (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01247.html)
David Farrar with the caveat that he did not estimate a good idea to focus 
on it, and myself with the caveat that I stated that it should not be part 
of the negotiation.

Against the removal of names (but no mention about the change of charter): 5
Dassa (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00991.html)
Peter de Blanc (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00995.html)
Patrick Corliss (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00898.html)
Joop Teernstra (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01009.html)
YoFelipe (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01082.html)
Marilyn Cade (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01249.html)
some of which even made clear that the one was incorrelated with the other.

Participated to the discussion about the contract, without expressing 
opinion on the subject of the .org charter change: 34, below in 
alphacbetical order
Alexander Svensson
Andrew Moulden
Andy Gardner
Bret Fausett
Bruce James
Christopher Ambler
Dale Farmer
Darrell Greenwood
Dave Crocker
Eric Dierker
Eric Weisberg
Erica Roberts
Erick Iriarte Ahon
Gomes, Chuck
Harald Alvestrand
Harald Alvestrand
James Seng
JandL
Jeff Williams
Joanna Lane
Joe Gluza
Jonathan Weinberg
Ken Stoen
Kent Crispin
Kevin J. Connolly
Michael Froomkin
Michael Schneider
Patrick Greenwell
Roeland Meyer
Sandy Harris
Siegfried Langenbach
Sotiris Sotiropoulos
Thomas Roessler
vint cerf

If I misunderstood somebody, can the misunderstood party point out to me the 
message that I have overlooked, or misinterpreted?

>The .org issue is a BIG part of these contracts, and it deserved to be
>a part of our position.
>

Indeed.
I also think that it will be a big mistake to change the charter "en-route", 
and my guess is that also other people (maybe the majority) will have strong 
feeling on this, but for the time being it is just a guess, not backed up by 
facts. The only way to proceed is not to invent a consensus that has not 
been expressed (yet), but to address this particular issue in a straw poll 
or vote, after discussion.

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: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:49:13 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[6]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Joanna,
>
>Hello Roberto,
>Those of us who believe our opinions count do not appreciate the GA Chair
>confirming directly to the NC Chair and DNSO Council, not to mention the
>public archive, that we are in the loser's camp before the jury is out.

I agree with you, and apologize.
Unfortunately, long years of experience and frustrations have come out at 
the wrong moment, with an inopportune comment.
But what should also have come out from the actions I am conducting, is that 
even if I believe that on certain things the decisions might have been 
taken, it is important to try to fight them and to be put on record as 
having opposed the decisions.

>Certainly you are naive to think an individual voice cannot make a
>difference to the outcome of deliberations. Let me assure you that even if
>you have no experience in this regard, it happens all the time.

Let's hope that this will happen this time.

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: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 06:33:37 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted

Kent and all remaining assembly members,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 03:31:03AM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, at 16:26 [=GMT-0800], Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > > The charter of .org (whatever it might be or whether there even is one)
> > > is independent of the entity (whatever it might be) that runs the TLD.
> > > The only thing mentioned in the contract is that there is a presumption
> > > that a non-profit entity would run .org.  There is no statement
> > > whatsoever about the policies that might or might not be adopted for
> > > .org.
> >
> > A faq (http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm) is
> > not a contract, sure. But why does ICANN deal with the matter
> > in the context of this contract at such length, if it isn't
> > relevant?
>
> Because there was a big stir in the community, and so they devoted some
> space in the FAQ to address the concerns that had been expressed.
>
> > The statements in the faq may have no legal force. But must
> > we assume that they are meaningless?
>
> What are you talking about? The statements in the FAQ explicitly state
> that *any* change to policies in .org would only come through community
> consensus.

  And the consensus from the straw poll as well as through the constituencies
such as the NCDNHC has already been expressed.  That consensus is
that there be NO changes in policy and/or practice in registrations in
.ORG.

>
>
> --
> 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

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: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:37:44 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Roberto and all remaining assembly members,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Joanna,
> >
> >Hello Roberto,
> >Those of us who believe our opinions count do not appreciate the GA Chair
> >confirming directly to the NC Chair and DNSO Council, not to mention the
> >public archive, that we are in the loser's camp before the jury is out.
>
> I agree with you, and apologize.

  You apology is excepted.  However speaking for myself and our
members it is too little to late.  :(

>
> Unfortunately, long years of experience and frustrations have come out at
> the wrong moment, with an inopportune comment.

  Comment?  Humm?  Your "Report" was by in large accurate, but you
should have requested from the GA members approval of the language
and the report as a whole as to it's accurate reflection on the consensus
of the GA, BEFOR sending it to the NC.  You know this should have
been done, yet you didn't do it.  That is NOT excusable, and is reprehensible.

>
> But what should also have come out from the actions I am conducting, is that
> even if I believe that on certain things the decisions might have been
> taken, it is important to try to fight them and to be put on record as
> having opposed the decisions.

  This is possibly true or the correct thing to do, however it is kind of
like shutting the barn door after the horse is out.  Not very effective.
Your action of sending your "Report" to the NC prematurely undermined
the consensus of the GA.  As such, individuals in the GA now have
an up hill battle potentially (Depending on their position) and this is
in a large part due to YOUR actions, Roberto.

   I sense Joanna's frustration, but admire her tenacity and sense
of fair play.

>
>
> >Certainly you are naive to think an individual voice cannot make a
> >difference to the outcome of deliberations. Let me assure you that even if
> >you have no experience in this regard, it happens all the time.
>
> Let's hope that this will happen this time.

Yes, but now it is not likely, thanks to your poor action...

>
>
> 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

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:43:05 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hi Roberto

Can you add my name to those opposed to a change in the ORG Charter.
I support the views of Marc Schneiders on this issue.

Thank you.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: Re[8]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

> William,
> 
> >
> > > If I had the wrong perception, I apologize.
> > > On one point though I insist: the focus of the current debate was on 
> >option
> > > A vs. option B, not the change of the charter. To make a consensus call 
> >on
> > > something that was not stated as the subject of the debate (even if it 
> >has
> > > implications) can be exposed to criticism and dilute the value of the
> > > position on the main statement.
> >
> >I disagree. The FAQ clearly shows that the issue of .org's charter was
> >an integral part of the talks between the two parties, and that makes
> >it very much a part of the discussion of this agreement.
> >
> >The decision to turn it over to a non-profit entity appears to be a
> >final decision if Plan B is approved, according to the staff answers
> >in the FAQ.
> >
> >That was why everyone was pushing for a strong statement on that as a
> >part of the comments of this agreement.
> >
> 
> 
> I have spent some time in going again through the 587 messages from 
> 2001-03-08 to 2001-03-25, when I have sent the report.
> 
> I might have overlooked something for the second time, but my findings are 
> the following:
> 
> In favour of the change of the charter of .org: 0
> 
> Against the change of the charter of .org (not just opposition to evict 
> current names): 7 - details of the messages follows
> Marc Schneiders (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00874.html)
> William X. Walsh (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00877.html)
> Jefsey Morfin (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01003.html)
> Kendall Dawson (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01019.html)
> DPF (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01021.html)
> Roberto Gaetano (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01072.html)
> Andy Gardner (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01247.html)
> David Farrar with the caveat that he did not estimate a good idea to focus 
> on it, and myself with the caveat that I stated that it should not be part 
> of the negotiation.
> 
> Against the removal of names (but no mention about the change of charter): 5
> Dassa (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00991.html)
> Peter de Blanc (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00995.html)
> Patrick Corliss (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00898.html)
> Joop Teernstra (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01009.html)
> YoFelipe (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01082.html)
> Marilyn Cade (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01249.html)
> some of which even made clear that the one was incorrelated with the other.

<snip> 

- --
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: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:29:09 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

If we are counting noses, I guess I should say that I see no point at all
in changing charters for any TLD at the moment.  I can certainly see why
someone might wish to create new ones with more carefully defined and/or
policed charters.

- -- 
		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: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 08:58:11 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Roberto:

Please add my name to those "opposed" to a change in the ORG Charter.

If you feel a 'Straw Poll" would be a better way of counting, please start
one.

Best regards,
/Bruce James/
GA Voting Member

- - ----- Original Message -----
From: Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: Re[8]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

> William,
>
> >
> > > If I had the wrong perception, I apologize.
> > > On one point though I insist: the focus of the current debate was on
> >option
> > > A vs. option B, not the change of the charter. To make a consensus
call
> >on
> > > something that was not stated as the subject of the debate (even if it
> >has
> > > implications) can be exposed to criticism and dilute the value of the
> > > position on the main statement.
> >
> >I disagree. The FAQ clearly shows that the issue of .org's charter was
> >an integral part of the talks between the two parties, and that makes
> >it very much a part of the discussion of this agreement.
> >
> >The decision to turn it over to a non-profit entity appears to be a
> >final decision if Plan B is approved, according to the staff answers
> >in the FAQ.
> >
> >That was why everyone was pushing for a strong statement on that as a
> >part of the comments of this agreement.
> >
>
>
> I have spent some time in going again through the 587 messages from
> 2001-03-08 to 2001-03-25, when I have sent the report.
>
> I might have overlooked something for the second time, but my findings are
> the following:
>
> In favour of the change of the charter of .org: 0
>
> Against the change of the charter of .org (not just opposition to evict
> current names): 7 - details of the messages follows
> Marc Schneiders (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00874.html)
> William X. Walsh (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00877.html)
> Jefsey Morfin (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01003.html)
> Kendall Dawson (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01019.html)
> DPF (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01021.html)
> Roberto Gaetano (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01072.html)
> Andy Gardner (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01247.html)
> David Farrar with the caveat that he did not estimate a good idea to focus
> on it, and myself with the caveat that I stated that it should not be part
> of the negotiation.
>
> Against the removal of names (but no mention about the change of charter):
5
> Dassa (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00991.html)
> Peter de Blanc (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00995.html)
> Patrick Corliss (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00898.html)
> Joop Teernstra (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01009.html)
> YoFelipe (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01082.html)
> Marilyn Cade (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01249.html)
> some of which even made clear that the one was incorrelated with the
other.

<snip>

- - --
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

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8
Comment:   /Signed/ & Sealed......

iQA/AwUBOsH73FO0kSJMvawzEQInpgCgrg74ehyEOCnwCE4QIhAaNawGPUoAoK13
FS3GWHvQH7Dnr9mwRTRSnH4O
=ro6+
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --
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: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:18:53 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Names Council vote

All remaining assembly members,

  From an annoucnment on the NCDNHC ML from Milton M.
========

This was just passed:

"The NC resolves that if forced to choose between the existing agreement
or the revised agreement as written the NC reluctantly chooses the
existing agreement." 

Voting in favor:
M. Mueller
Vany Martinez
YJ Park (proxy to Vany)
M. Schneider (ISP)
H. Hotta (ISP - proxy to Schneider)
P. Sheppard (B&C)
P. Kane (registrar)
G. Forsyth (B&C)
K. Stubbs (registrar)

Voting Against:
Guillermo (IPCC)
C. Chicoine (IPCC-proxy to Guillermo)
R. Cochetti (registry)
T. Swineheart (B&C)
P. de Blanc (ccTLD)
E. Porteneuve (ccTLD)

Abstention:
A Aus Der Muhlen (IPCC)

regards,
- --
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: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:39:06 -0500
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The Administrative Procedures Act

The recent letter from US Senator Conrad Burns to Mr. David Walker,
Comptroller General of the GAO, notably referenced the article "Wrong Turn
in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA and the Constitution" by
Professor A. Michael Froomkin.  Having taken the time to read this
well-considered document in its entirety, I find myself drawn to the
following paragraphs that seem to sum up the crux of the ICANN problem:

* If ICANN is engaged in policymaking, and if DoC is reviewing these
decisions and retaining the authority to countermand them, then DoC's
adoption of or approval of ICANN's regulatory and policy decisions are
subject to the APA. One could argue as to whether DoC's approval is an
informal adjudication under the APA,{45} or whether due to its overwhelming
influence over ICANN and due to its adopting ICANN's rules, DoC is engaged
in rulemaking without proper notice and comment. In either case, however,
the APA has been violated.
* If, on the other hand, ICANN is engaged in policymaking and DoC does not
retain the power to countermand ICANN's decisions, then DoC has delegated
rulemaking and policymaking power to ICANN. This probably violates the APA,
since it was done without proper rulemaking; regardless of the applicability
of the APA, it violates the Due Process Clause and the nondelegation
doctrine of the U.S. Constitution, as well as basic public policy norms
designed to hold agencies and officials accountable for their use of public
power. Since ICANN's board and staff operate largely in secret, it is
difficult for outsiders to know how much influence DoC has over ICANN's [*pg
34] decisionmaking. As a result, the statutory and constitutional arguments
in this Article are presented in the alternative. The two arguments are very
closely related, however, in that both rely on legal doctrines designed to
promote accountability and prevent the arbitrary exercise of government
power.
The APA (the Administrative Procedures Act) is essentially the codification
of the principle of "fair play"; at issue in the Senator's letter is whether
"ICANN is the appropriate body to manage the DNS; and
whether ICANN has performed well". It seems clear to me that Washington has
received a very loud message from the public that "fairness" has been
woefully absent at ICANN, and that as such perhaps another institution needs
to be charged with the policy aspects of the Internet.
I believe that we have the means to address this problem.  The ICANN Board
has recently passed the following resolutions:
   [Resolution 01.28] The Board asks the Names Council and other sources
   to separate their proposals into those that improve operations of the
   DNSO as it is constituted today and those which may result in changes
   in the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning.

   [Resolution 01.29] The Board encourages input related to changes that
   improve operations of the DNSO as it is constituted today no later
   than April 16, 2001. Further Board action on the basis of that input
   will be scheduled at the end of that period."

In light of these resolutions, it may be prudent for members of the DNSO to
recommend to the ICANN Board that it agree to abide by the language of the
APA as a first step toward improving operations of the DNSO, and as a first
step in restoring public confidence.  The language of the APA clearly
addresses the need for due process, for ample time for public comment, and
speaks to consensus-based decision-making mechanisms as well.

If Washington can be convinced that the Board is taking action to properly
manage its affairs, then the Senator's request to the Department of Commerce
might well be withdrawn:  "In the meantime, I urge you to refrain from
taking any major steps to further empower or delegate authority to ICANN."
In that the Senator's formal request can effectively serve to inhibit the
rapid DoC approval of the new registry agreements, the ICANN Board needs to
be able to take immediate action to fight to safeguard the interests of its
stakeholders.    A resolution from the DNSO to adopt the language of the APA
might well be the one single action needed to reassure oversight committees
that ICANN can indeed correct its deficiencies, and that the DNSO is the one
body best equipped to formulate Internet domain name policy recommendations.

We can come together as a group and adopt the language of the APA.  It is
workable even in the unique bottoms-up consensus-driven world of the DNSO
(an application of the APA to the working group environment may be noted in
the following document:
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01952.html ).     The Board
has asked for our help to improve operations.   It would be nice to hear
members of the General Assembly offering up some substantive
recommendations.

- --
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: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:51:19 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Second NC vote

Milton and all,

  We [INEGroup] I believe, do support this vote by the NC.

  We also would like to see a vote by the NC on additional provisions
regarding the dispensation of .ORG and the moratorium on any charter
changes or practice/policy changes on registration of DN's in the
.ORG name space as has been indicated clearly on the DNSO GA
ML an through a straw poll taken there....

Milton Mueller wrote:

> This passed 10 for, 1 against, 5 abstentions
>
> <not authoritative language>
>
> C. The NC proposes that a win-win position for ICANN and the internet community would be for the Board to seek negotiation with Verisign on the following provisions and, if necessary, to ask the US Department of Commerce and Verisign to consider a delay while these changes to the revised agreement are sought:
>
> 1) earmark a specified portion of Verisign's promised $200 million R&D/investment fund to the development and implementation, in an open and transparent process, of the platform and search capabilities for a unified, publicly accessible WhoIs service that spans .com, .net and .org, and is both available and required for all ICANN accredited TLD registries;
>
> 2) earlier divestment of dot net;
>
> 3) enforceable safeguards, with an ultimate sanction of divestment of the dot com registry and registrar, regarding the potential for abuse of dominant position.
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: [email-masked]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 01:57:09 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law <[email-masked]>
On Thursday, March 29, 2001 12:29 AM (AEST)

> If we are counting noses, I guess I should say that I see no point at all
> in changing charters for any TLD at the moment.  I can certainly see why
> someone might wish to create new ones with more carefully defined and/or
> policed charters.

The best way to do that is on a national basis as the laws differ from country
to country.  That is why Australia has the 2LD .org.au which is strongly policed
locally.  In the US they can use .org.us if they want.  Or create a new TLD like
.asn (association) etc.

If you are going to change the charter for .org, you should do it for .com also
and make sure that the registrant is a registered commercial organisation.  That
would slow down the boom in dorcom sales and hurt Verisign in the financial back
pocket.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:56:15 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Administrative Procedures Act

It's a nice idea, and shows thinking out of the box.  But what makes the
APA more than a piece of paper is that people can go to court to enforce
it.  Although agencies win more than they lose in court, they don't always
win, and the *threat* of review is thought by many to keep them honest.

Leaving aside myriad problems with just adopting the APA whole (how would
ICANN publish its proposed rules in the federal register (an APA
requirement)? why should an international advisory/standards body such as
ICANN claims to be use US rules?), let me ask just the hardest one: how
would one replicate the critical feature of judicial review?

If, on the other hand, you mean to write rules that replicate the
notice-and-comment provisions of the APA, and the rules agains ex parte
contacts and conflicts of interests, yes, I agree that this would be a
great start - no more last-minute surprises!

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, babybows.com wrote:

[...]
> 
> In light of these resolutions, it may be prudent for members of the DNSO to
> recommend to the ICANN Board that it agree to abide by the language of the
> APA as a first step toward improving operations of the DNSO, and as a first
> step in restoring public confidence.  The language of the APA clearly
> addresses the need for due process, for ample time for public comment, and
> speaks to consensus-based decision-making mechanisms as well.
> 
> If Washington can be convinced that the Board is taking action to properly
> manage its affairs, then the Senator's request to the Department of Commerce
> might well be withdrawn:  "In the meantime, I urge you to refrain from
> taking any major steps to further empower or delegate authority to ICANN."
> In that the Senator's formal request can effectively serve to inhibit the
> rapid DoC approval of the new registry agreements, the ICANN Board needs to
> be able to take immediate action to fight to safeguard the interests of its
> stakeholders.    A resolution from the DNSO to adopt the language of the APA
> might well be the one single action needed to reassure oversight committees
> that ICANN can indeed correct its deficiencies, and that the DNSO is the one
> body best equipped to formulate Internet domain name policy recommendations.
> 
> We can come together as a group and adopt the language of the APA.  It is
> workable even in the unique bottoms-up consensus-driven world of the DNSO
> (an application of the APA to the working group environment may be noted in
> the following document:
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01952.html ).     The Board
> has asked for our help to improve operations.   It would be nice to hear
> members of the General Assembly offering up some substantive
> recommendations.
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:39:02 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: Names Council vote

FYI...:)

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 8:52 AM
Subject: Names Council vote

This was just passed:

"The NC resolves that if forced to choose between the existing agreement or
the revised agreement as written the NC reluctantly chooses the existing
agreement."

Voting in favor:
M. Mueller
Vany Martinez
YJ Park (proxy to Vany)
M. Schneider (ISP)
H. Hotta (ISP - proxy to Schneider)
P. Sheppard (B&C)
P. Kane (registrar)
G. Forsyth (B&C)
K. Stubbs (registrar)

Voting Against:
Guillermo (IPCC)
C. Chicoine (IPCC-proxy to Guillermo)
R. Cochetti (registry)
T. Swineheart (B&C)
P. de Blanc (ccTLD)
E. Porteneuve (ccTLD)

Abstention:
A Aus Der Muhlen (IPCC)

- ---
You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: [email-masked]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[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: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:13:54 -0500
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  The Administrative Procedures Act

Michael Froomkin wrote:  "If, on the other hand, you mean to write rules
that replicate the notice-and-comment provisions of the APA, and the rules
against ex parte contacts and conflicts of interests, yes, I agree that this
would be a great start - no more last-minute surprises!"

As Michael is more eloquent than I, the above summary is exactly what was
meant.  The earlier referenced fifteen-page document,  "The Uniform
Procedure to Establish Consensus" attempts to write such rules:
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01952.html

Best regards,
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #315
************************