Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #316
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, March 29 2001           Volume 01 : Number 316

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

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:31:15 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Straw Poll - .Org charter/policy/practice change...

All remaining assembly members,

  The following is a straw poll to determing the will or desire of the
DNSO GA members and other interested parties regarding the
dispensation of .ORG's registration Policy/practice/charter.

1.) Should the registration of Domain names Policy/practice/policy
     be changed irrespective to what entity will be the new registry
     for .ORG?    Yes []   No[]

2.) Should the new registry for .ORG be required to keep the
     current Policy/practice/charter for registration of Domain
     Names in the .ORG gTLD?  Yes [] No []

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 08:52:02 -0800
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

An mp3 archive of today's Names Council meeting is available at:

    http://www.lextext.com/nc03282001.html

Many thanks to the Names Council for continuing to make its meetings open to
the public in spite of its budget constraints and for its willingness to
explore alternative, less expensive options for webcasting.

      -- 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: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:19:07 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 7:57 AM
> 
> Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law <[email-masked]>
> On Thursday, March 29, 2001 12:29 AM (AEST)

> 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.

That's a problem that no longer exists in the same degree. In fact, i
imagine that there are many domains that will not be renewed in the next
year.
- --
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 11:30:47 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Administrative Procedures Act

Danny and all remaining assembly members,

  I would seem appropriate that FIRST the DNSO must reform itself
before suggesting that ICANN reform itself, specifically the ICANN BoD.
As such, I can completely understand the ICANN BoD for to an extent
ignoring the DNSO GA.

  The DNSO GA an it's associated ML needs to following reforms
BEFORE andy credence can be considered serious for the ICANN
BoD or the APA consideration:

1.) That any and all interested parties be able to participate in
     any and all WG's that the DNSO may form or otherwise
     utilize.

2.) That any and all interested parties or potential participants
      have unfettered access to become voting members of the
      DNSO GA.

3.) That any and all interested parties or potential participants
     be able to participate on the DNSO GA Mailing List.

babybows.com wrote:

> 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

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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:13:12 -0500
From: Hans Klein <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] CYBER-FED 10: Origins Of ICANNS's At Large Membership

                        Please forward
  ********************************************************
  CYBER-FEDERALIST          No. 10          March 27, 2001 

         THE ORIGINS OF ICANN'S AT LARGE MEMBERSHIP

                         Hans Klein
   Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
                  http://www.civsoc.org
               The Internet Democracy Project 
         http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/
  ********************************************************

THE ORIGINS OF ICANN'S AT LARGE MEMBERSHIP

Of the many controversies surrounding ICANN, perhaps the most contentious
have been those about At Large Membership (ALM). Should there be a
membership?  If so, what form should it take? Now that it has been created,
should it be abolished? Who would want to abolish it and why?

Underlying all these issues is one foundational question: What is the
appropriate role of the Internet user in Internet technical coordination?
Furthermore, as we recognize the linkages between Internet technical
coordination and public policies for intellectual property, industry
competition, and even national sovereignty, the foundational question can
be restated as: What is the appropriate role of the Internet user in global
Internet policy-making? 

The ALM issues go very deep indeed!

Here I don't attempt to define the user's role in technical coordination or
in policy-making.  Instead I review the history of the ALM's creation. By
understanding that history, we can better understand questions confronting
us today.

Before ICANN: The Internet Society (ISOC)
=========================================
>From the earliest days, proposals for an institution to perform technical
coordination have included a mass membership component.  The early model
for this was the Internet Society (ISOC).

ISOC was created in 1992 to serve as the institutional home for
standards-related bodies like the IETF and, later, for the IANA function of
technical coordination.  ISOC is a membership organization, with both
organizational and individual members (who today number around 6,000.)
ISOC's founders include many individuals who were active in the creation of
ICANN, most notably Vint Cerf, Jon Postel, and Mike Roberts.

In a 1996 document known as "draft-Postel," a proposal was made that ISOC
assume responsibility for technical coordination.  Had this proposal
succeeded, then ISOC would have assumed the role of today's ICANN -- and
ISOC's members might have had a status similar to today's At Large
Membership. Technical coordination would have been performed by a mass
membership organization with an elected Board of Trustees.

That proposal was rejected, however, and its place there came the IAHC plan
in 1997 (URLs of web sites with more information are below).  In the IAHC
plan ISOC shared top authority with WIPO, ITU, and other groups. ISOC, a
mass membership organization, controlled two board seats.

Right from the beginning, then, attempts to institutionalize the technical
coordination functions included a mass membership component.  Furthermore,
that membership-based approach was pioneered by people like Vint Cerf, Jon
Postel, and Mike Roberts.

The Green and White Papers
==========================
Following the US government veto of the IAHC plan in 1997, new policy
parameters form membership were defined.  These were set out in 1998, first
in the Green Paper and then in the White Paper.

While both documents pointedly ignored any special role to ISOC, they
defined a role for Internet users in technical coordination. The language
for this was somewhat vague, however.

Relevant portions of the GREEN PAPER read as follows:

"Principles For A New System. [...] 4. Representation.  Technical
management of the Internet should reflect the diversity of its users and
their needs.  Mechanisms should be established to ensure international
input in decision making."

"... the organization and its board must derive legitimacy from the
participation of key stakeholders.  Since the organization will be
concerned mainly with numbers, names, and protocols, its board should
represent membership organizations in each of these area, as well as the
direct interests of Internet users."

"... membership associations representing 1) registries and registars, and
2) Internet users, must be formed."

The WHITE PAPER came a few months later and contained official US policy.
The White Paper stated:

Technical coordination "... should be vested in a single organization that
is representative of Internet users around the globe." 

"Principle for a New System. [...] 4. Representation.  The new corporation
should operate as a private entity for the benefit of the Internet
community as a whole.  The development of ... policies ... will depend on
input from the broad and growing community of Internet users."

These policy guidelines do not provide a definitive answer to the role of
members in technical coordination.  They do, however, provide some
indications of what the role would be.  First, the focus is now on *users*,
rather than on Internet professionals. ISOC is a professional association
not a user organization, so this change in definition is significant.
Second, there is specific reference to the creation of a membership
association for users.  User participation would be in the form of members
joined in association.  Third, there is mention that the Board should
represent users' "direct interests."  Mention of direct representation
suggests that there should be little intermediation between users and their
board representatives, while the reference to interests recognizes that
user participation goes beyond issues of technical expertise.  In summary,
the White and Green Papers emphasized a role for Internet users, they
conceived of users as members joined in association, and they foresaw
direct board representation of users.

The ICANN By-Laws
================= 
Following the release of the White Paper, in the summer of 1998 there took
place the International Forum for the White Paper (IFWP) to design the
bylaws of what would be ICANN.  The bylaws would translate the White
Paper's broad principles into operational rules.

In the IFWP process one of the most hotly contested issues was whether
ICANN would be a membership organization.  Jon Postel at IANA now opposed
membership, and one may surmise that this position was shared by others
with close ties to ISOC.  Despite their earlier attempts to give a major
role to ISOC, they now opposed linking users and technical coordination.
Working in a independently of the public forum, they produced a set of
bylaws with no provisions for membership.

A second bylaws proposal was produced by some of the participants in the
IFWP who called themselves the Boston Working Group (BWG).  They proposed
bylaws that included membership.  They also put the membership provisions
in the articles of incorporation rather than the bylaws, to protect them
against later attempts at elimination.  (It is more difficult to amend the
articles than the bylaws.)

In a September 1998 article in _The_Standard_ Larry Lessig summarized the
differences between the two approaches: 

"These two processes produced two very different results. IANA proposed a
powerful but closed corporation. Principles of separation, or checks on its
powers, don't sing in its draft. The board need not answer to the demands
of "members"; there are no "members." The only check on its powers will be
the California Attorney General, who might have other things to do than
monitor this board. It is an engineer's corporation, but with none of the
virtues of openness and vulnerability that mark organizations such as the
Internet Engineering Task Force." (Lessig, 1998)

In the fall of 1998 the US Department of Commerce reconciled the two
versions of the bylaws by requiring that provisions for membership be
included in the bylaws.  Membership was included in ICANN, but it was
codified only in the bylaws, leaving membership vulnerable to later
attempts at expurgation.

Conclusions
===========
>From this history we can gain a better understanding of ICANN's At Large
Members.  

ICANN's membership was intended to represent Internet users from around the
globe.  Members were conceived as joining in association and having direct
representation of their interests on the board.  Their role was seen as
balancing the influence of the ICANN board, serving as a check on its power
and ensuring accountability.

ICANN's membership provisions were actively opposed by groups working
closely with IANA.  This opposition represented a shift from their earlier
proposals to locate technical coordination authority in ISOC, itself a
membership organization.  However, ISOC and ICANN embody different
conceptions of members: ISOC's members are conceived of as Internet
experts, whereas ICANN's members are intended to be Internet users. ICANN's
At Large Membership is intended to be open, independent, and consisting of
users rather than experts.

Perhaps the greatest historical irony is that today's on-going process to
revisit and possibly eliminate the At Large Membership was anticipated from
the start. The bylaws have shown themselves to be a weak mechanism for
protection of membership provisions. Shortly after its creation, ICANN
began modifying its bylaw provisions about membership.  These amendments
weakened the membership provisions -- and may yet lead to the termination
of user involvement in technical coordination.

Today's "clean sheet" study of the ALM re-opens a question that was settled
in 1998.  Should Internet users have a role in technical coordination?  The
answer in 1998 was a definite "yes": the US Department of Commerce's
recognition of ICANN was conditioned on its membership provisions, and
membership was broadly supported in the IFWP process and even in the
earlier draft-Postel and IAHC plans.  

Despite this, at its 2000 Yokohama meeting the ICANN board modified the
bylaws to state: "previous decisions and conclusions regarding an "At
Large" membership will be informative but not determinative."  This was a
striking turn-around from a commitment made just two years earlier.  The
amendment holds the prospect of eliminating the main mechanism for
achieving a balance of influence in ICANN.

History helps us understand the functions of the At Large Membership as
well as to identify the supporters and opponents of the membership. Today's
review of membership must be seen in historical perspective in order to be
fully understood.

References
==========

Draft Postel.
http://www.newdom.com/archive/draft-postel-iana-itld-admin-01.txt
Also described in Milton Mueller (1999), "ICANN and Internet Governance:
Sorting through the debris of 'self-regulation'" (published in INFO).
http://www.icannwatch.org/archive/muell.pdf

Internet Society. http://www.isoc.org/isoc/related/ietf/

IAHC. http://www.gtld-mou.org/

Green Paper. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dnsdrft.htm

White Paper. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htmBWG, 

Boston Working Group. http://www.cavebear.com/bwg/

Lessig, Lawrence, "A Bad Turn for Net Governance." The Standard. September
18, 1998. http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,1718,00.html

ICANN Yokohama Bylaw Amendments.
http://www.icann.org/committees/at-large/study-comments.htm

At Large Membership Study Committee. http://www.atlargestudy.org/

###

========================================================= 

CYBER-FEDERALIST is a regularly published series of analyses and
commentaries on Internet governance and ICANN.  See:
    http://www.cyber-federalist.org  (archive)

It is produced as part of the Internet Democracy Project. See: 
    http://www.civsoc.org
    http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/

The Cyber-Federalist is written by Hans Klein:
	http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~hk28/

Subscribe to the CYBER-FEDERALIST!  Send an 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 03:31:03 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted

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? The statements in the faq may have no legal force. But must
we assume that they are meaningless? And if we do not agree with
possible *implications* (explicit or not in a contract), why can't we
protest against them now, before it is too late? The ball is already
rolling...

Protest is the only answer. See my .sig ...

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

- --
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 08:00:00
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] IslaTortuga.SHORT 27/03/01 -- NETWORK SOLUTIONS, ESTO ES CYBERSQUATTING Y LOS DEMAS AFICIONADOS

- --______BoundaryOfDocument______
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Si ves esto, quiere decir que tu navegador es muy antiguo o tienes desactivado el visor HTML, es decir que para ver el contenido de este mensaje tendras que pulsar el link de mas abajo y podras ver las noticias de "La Isla".

http://www.pasarelaip.com/itnews/itnewsactual7.htm

Salu2
The IslaTortuga.TEAM

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

Este servicio se envia porque en algun momento contactastes con Angeloso, para solicitar su ayuda. Si no deseas recibir mas esta publicacion, lee nuestro boletin pulsando en el link de mas arriba y sigue las instrucciones que se encuentran abajo de todo del mismo para tu desuscripcion.

This service is receiving because a former contact with Angeloso asking for help. If you dont want to receive anymore, please goto into our newsletter pressing  the above link and follow the instructions at bottom.

Nuestra politica en seguridad de datos puede verse visitando nuestra pagina // Our Privacy Policy is available in our page (Powered by Trust-e).

- --______BoundaryOfDocument______
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta http-equiv=REFRESH content="1;URL=http://www.pasarelaip.com/itnews/itnewsactual7.htm">
</head>

<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2><b>Cargando contenidos 
  desde la Base de Datos........<br>
  Espera unos segundos sin cerrar la ventana.</b><br>
  <br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Si pasa un minuto 
  y no ves la noticia, <a href="http://www.pasarelaip.com/itnews/itnewsactual7.htm" target="_blank">pulsa 
  en este link</a>.</font></p>
<hr>
<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Si te perdiste las 
  noticias de la edicion pasada, <a href="http://www.pasarelaip.com/itnews/itnewspasadas7.htm" target="_blank">pulsa 
  en este otro link</a></font></p>
<hr>
<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Sistema de Newsletters 
  HTMLNEWS. v1.3.4-<br>
  (C) 2,000-01  Monbad, Inc.<br>
  Creado por Angeloso<br>
  <br>
  DOMINIO PUBLICO</font></p>
<hr>
<div align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="1"><i>Este 
  servicio se envia porque en algun momento contactastes con Angeloso, 
  para solicitar su ayuda. Si no deseas recibir mas esta publicacion, lee nuestro 
  boletin y sigue las instrucciones que se encuentran abajo de todo para tu desuscripcion 
  o bien pulsa <a href="mailto:[email-masked]">este 
  link</a> y envianos el mail preformateado que se creara para recibir completas 
  instrucciones de borrado.<br>
  <br>
  This service is  receiving that, is because a former contact 
  with Angeloso asking for help. If you dont want to receive anymore, please goto 
  at bottom of our newsletter and follow the instructions or <a href="mailto:[email-masked]>press 
  here</a> and send us the preformatted mail created for received complete instructions 
  for deletion.<br>
  <br>
  </i></font><font class=ArGris11 color="#666666" face=Arial size=1>Nuestra politica 
  en seguridad de datos puede verse pulsando <a href="http://www.pasarelaip.com/privacy/statement.html">este 
  link</a> // Our Privacy Policy is available <a href="http://www.pasarelaip.com/privacy/statement.html">here</a> 
  (Powered by <img src="http://www.pasarelaip.com/privacy/powered.gif" width=74 height=12 align=top> 
  ).</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="1"><i> <br>
  </i></font> </div>
</body>
</html>
</body> </html>

- --______BoundaryOfDocument______--

- --
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 07:48:06 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: Names Council vote

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:39:02 -0600, you wrote:

>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."

Yay.  Well done.  I hope the Board will do the sensible thing and not
proceed with the proposed changes when its own DNSO advice is against
them.  

DPF

>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]

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:48:04 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] (fwd) Re: [cctld-discuss] Verisign Agreements

GA members may be interested to peruse the link below.

DPF

>
>Please see the ICANN comment forum at
>http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?nsi2001;3AC1CE1E000002E4
>
>for Queen's Counsel's opinion on the proposed
>revisions to the Verisign agreements.

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

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

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:55:50 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Council vote

>"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)

That the Registrars voted against the new agreement tends to suggest that
they have spotted the anti-competitive nature of it.

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

The IPCC vote was a given (IPCC=ICANN).

Interesting to see the ccTLD brigade vote for the new agreement. Do they
see it as detrimental to the growth of the gTLD's, and thus something that
might see them with more business?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:23:00 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] (fwd) Re: [cctld-discuss] Verisign Agreements

At 7:48 am +1200 3/29/01, DPF wrote:
>GA members may be interested to peruse the link below.
>
>DPF
>
>>
>>Please see the ICANN comment forum at
>>http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?nsi2001;3AC1CE1E000002E4
>>
>>for Queen's Counsel's opinion on the proposed
>>revisions to the Verisign agreements.

Quoting:

"VeriSign purchased GreatDomains and put a first tranche of what is
believed to be a quarter of a million names on the GreatDomains site for
sale"

Yes. And considering NSI allowed people to puchase those names on a
pay-later basis, and were never paid later, that amount to a bad debt on
NSI's books of either 8.75 million dollars, or 17.5 million is they were
two year registrations. Has NSI/Verisign showed this in their public
accounts?

"The result is that VeriSign appears to be doing what many would describe
as warehousing on a huge scale."

And they're not the only ones. In an effort to retain names under the same
"we were never paid for them" ploy, Register.com/Afternic is doing exactly
the same.

Afternic is selling off 8000 (?) names via their "discount bin"

http://members.afternic.com/discountbin?showcase

Most of these names are practically worthless, but that's not the point.

Let's pick one:

whois 10108.com  (abbreviated)

   Organization:
      register.com
      Unpaid Name Department
      575 Eighth Avenue
      New York, NY 10018
      US
      Phone: 212-594-9100
      Fax..: 212-594-9876
      Email: [email-masked]

Hmmm. Clearly the registrar has decided they are allowed to own these names.

      Created on..............: Wed, Mar 22, 2000
      Expires on..............: Thu, Mar 22, 2001

Whoops! What have we here? The name expired 6 days ago, but hasn't been put
on-hold! Shame!

Afternic/Registrar.com will sell you this expired domain for $12, plus
Afternic's DNEscrow ("the only safe way to buy and sell domains") fee - a
whopping $50. Needing to pay escrow on a name "owned" by a registrar
doesn't make me very comfortable about their business ethics.

So you have to pay $62 for a one year registration of a name that you
SHOULD be able to buy via ANY Registrar at their standard rate.

Here's Register.com's excuse, as provided at Afternic:

"DiscountBin Advisory

From time to time, a registrant registers a name after it provides adequate
assurance of payment, per ICANN rules, and then reverses and cancels the
payment after the domain name is registered. This practice is unfair to
consumers since these often attractive names are no longer publicly
available. It puts the registrar in a difficult financial position since it
has been forced to pay a non-refundable fee to the registry, despite the
fact that it has not received payment from the registrant. The Afternic
website is making available to the public some of these delinquent domain
names.
Register.com has been the victim of this practice with respect to a portion
of its names. As with all register.com registrations, and in accordance
with the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement, register.com's practice
is to register a domain name only after it has charged a credit card (in
the case of an individual registrant) or has received an equivalent form of
assurance of payment from corporate or reseller accounts. In some
instances, individual registrants have executed what is commonly known as a
credit card "chargeback," which requires a credit card company to refuse
payment to register.com, leaving register.com to absorb the registration
cost, including the registry fee and all accounting administrative costs.
In an effort to make these names available to the public once again while
attempting to recoup such registration costs, register.com has decided to
make these names available through the Afternic.com service. Since many of
the names are pending expiration, buyers of these names should be ready to
submit payment via credit card within 24hours. Afternic's lowest standard
DNescrow fee applies to each name sold and includes one year of
registration with register.com in addition to any remaining term of
registration.
Afternic is pleased to offer this service to ensure that consumers are not
needlessly prevented from registering valuable names, and that cyber
squatters are not compensated for gambling with registrations without
having to pay a fee."

Hey Register.com, you "attempt to recoup" your registration costs by going
after the people that (supposedly) did the chargeback, NOT by warehousing
names past their expiry date.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:56:24 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hello Patrick,

Wednesday, March 28, 2001, 7:57:09 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> 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.

Not to mention all the domain holders it would hurt.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:19:28 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Brad Waller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:21:11 -0800

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Jeff Williams wrote:

> All remaining assembly members,
>
>   The following is a straw poll to determing the will or desire of the
> DNSO GA members and other interested parties regarding the
> dispensation of .ORG's registration Policy/practice/charter.
>
> 1.) Should the registration of Domain names Policy/practice/policy
>      be changed irrespective to what entity will be the new registry
>      for .ORG?    Yes [X]   No[]
>
> 2.) Should the new registry for .ORG be required to keep the
>      current Policy/practice/charter for registration of Domain
>      Names in the .ORG gTLD?  Yes [] No [X]
>

 Brad Waller  <mailto:[email-masked]>
 (owner of vettenet.org)
- --
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 18:06:41 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Please add my name also to those "opposed" to a change in the ORG Charter.
Regards,
Joanna Lane

- -----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

- --
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 #316
************************