Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #317
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, March 29 2001           Volume 01 : Number 317

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

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 19:37:23 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

I'm not voting in this particular round.  If there had been an option to
have the community undertake an indepth consideration of the charter, I
would have supported that. It's possible the  outcome would be the same but
I can't forecast.  In the meantime, please show me, therefore as "abstain". 

cheers,

Marilyn
- --
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 17:23:57 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hello Marilyn,

Wednesday, March 28, 2001, 4:37:23 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I'm not voting in this particular round.  If there had been an option to
> have the community undertake an indepth consideration of the charter, I
> would have supported that. It's possible the  outcome would be the same but
> I can't forecast.  In the meantime, please show me, therefore as "abstain". 

I think the principle is if a change in policy is appropriate to even
consider for TLD that has been in use so long.

Obviously the sense of most of us is absolutely not, under any
circumstances.

The harm to the internet community, and to domain name holders, is way
too much to even make this something that should ever be reasonably
considered.

- -- 
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: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 20:50:21 -0500
From: Dale Farmer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org  fromunrestricted to restricted

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? 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 ...

   Actually, at least in US courts, the documents around the contract do
have some legal force.  When a contract is subject to a lawsuit, and the
contract language is ambiguous on the particular issue(s), the judge will
go to the documents that exist from the contract negotiation process.
These can range from internal memos to media interviews with the parties.
The judge then evaluates them to try and divine the intent of the parties
who created the contract.
    I'm not a lawyer, and thus may be wrong about legalisms.

    --Dale

- --
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 11:07:51 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] (fwd) Re: [cctld-discuss] Verisign Agreements

At 07:48 29/03/01 +1200, 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.
>

Well presented arguments.
Thanks for the link, David.

- -joop
- --
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 18:33:54 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[8]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

At 03:42 AM 3/28/2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>In favour of the change of the charter of .org: 0

Has anyone noticed that the subject line does not match the focus of 
discussion?

That's not a minor matter of bookkeeping.  It underscores a missed opportunity.

The Verisign contract alternative does not mandate any change in the 
charter of .org.

People have spent essentially all of their time arguing about a matter that 
is not part of the contract consideration and have literally ignored the 
major features that ARE subject to change by the alternative contract.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
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 22:14:44 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org  fromunrestricted to restricted

Dale Farmer wrote:

> 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)
> >
> > 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 ...
>
>    Actually, at least in US courts, the documents around the contract do
> have some legal force.  When a contract is subject to a lawsuit, and the
> contract language is ambiguous on the particular issue(s), the judge will
> go to the documents that exist from the contract negotiation process.
> These can range from internal memos to media interviews with the parties.
> The judge then evaluates them to try and divine the intent of the parties
> who created the contract.
>     I'm not a lawyer, and thus may be wrong about legalisms.
>
>     --Dale

This should be taken further to add that under APA the public comments are part
of the record which any authority uses to substantiate that their position was
in good faith, and not derived from back room shady deals.

Believe it or not even the truth as it exists at the time is relevant to a
determination of appropriate contract and public policy compliance. (Who's
truth?)

Sincerely,

Simply added as an historian, FWIW.

- --
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 22:24:43 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

There is a logical philosophical problem here; the balance between stability and
adaptability in a very changing environment.  Someone's right to rely versus
modification of outdated concepts.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news but
generally speaking under U.S. law we really do not have the right to expect the
government to perpetually do what it says it will do. This has to do with rights
of changing administrations not being bound by previous and a constant right not
to have one party entitled to do business, over another, with the government. It
follows our open RFP concepts.  It is ugly to think that by law the US gov could
just nix your right to your domain name, and politically it would not happen in a
wholesale manner but it is something to think about.

Sincerely,

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Marilyn,
>
> Wednesday, March 28, 2001, 4:37:23 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
> > I'm not voting in this particular round.  If there had been an option to
> > have the community undertake an indepth consideration of the charter, I
> > would have supported that. It's possible the  outcome would be the same but
> > I can't forecast.  In the meantime, please show me, therefore as "abstain".
>
> I think the principle is if a change in policy is appropriate to even
> consider for TLD that has been in use so long.
>
> Obviously the sense of most of us is absolutely not, under any
> circumstances.
>
> The harm to the internet community, and to domain name holders, is way
> too much to even make this something that should ever be reasonably
> considered.
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 19:27:37 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hello Eric,

Wednesday, March 28, 2001, 10:24:43 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> There is a logical philosophical problem here; the balance between stability and
> adaptability in a very changing environment.  Someone's right to rely versus
> modification of outdated concepts.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news but
> generally speaking under U.S. law we really do not have the right to expect the
> government to perpetually do what it says it will do. This has to do with rights
> of changing administrations not being bound by previous and a constant right not
> to have one party entitled to do business, over another, with the government. It
> follows our open RFP concepts.  It is ugly to think that by law the US gov could
> just nix your right to your domain name, and politically it would not happen in a
> wholesale manner but it is something to think about.

No one is talking about what the government can legally do and what it can't
legally do, Eric.

We are talking about whether it is appropriate or inappropriate for
ICANN to do or consider doing.

- -- 
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: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 19:35:45 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[10]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Hello Dave,

Wednesday, March 28, 2001, 6:33:54 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 03:42 AM 3/28/2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>In favour of the change of the charter of .org: 0

> Has anyone noticed that the subject line does not match the focus of 
> discussion?

> That's not a minor matter of bookkeeping.  It underscores a missed opportunity.

> The Verisign contract alternative does not mandate any change in the 
> charter of .org.

> People have spent essentially all of their time arguing about a matter that 
> is not part of the contract consideration and have literally ignored the 
> major features that ARE subject to change by the alternative contract.

You can Kent say that it isn't, but it is clear that it is in fact a
part of the agreement, even if that part is not on paper.

The subject line is very appropriate, since the GA position paper that
was sent did not accurately reflect what the GA members had expressed
as their position on the Verisign Contract with regard to the section
of those comments relating to the .org TLD.

The other areas have been discussed, and you and Kent had been asked
to explain how the other parts of the agreement would result in
something positive FOR THE INTERNET COMMUNITY that would outweigh both
the real and possible negative impacts on the internet community.

We KNOW the benefits to Verisign and ICANN, and few, if any, of us
think that those benefits adequately extend to benefit the internet
community.

If you have a different opinion, please express it and back it up.

Or is this just more of your "tow the ICANN line" that we expect from
you and Kent?

- -- 
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: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 22:15:19 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] (fwd) Re: [cctld-discuss] Verisign Agreements

David and all remaining assembly members,

  I would for the most part have to agree with Mr. Stanbrooks
comments and conclusions here.

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.
>
> --
> [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

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 23:43:45 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Bill, May I call you that?

For some reason you miss the correlation between public input and what the government
can do.  I don't know why but for some reason I thought you were a moderately mature
American who had understood this concept.

I apologize for any assumption.  For anyone lost in this concept let me make it
perfectly clear; when we speak of the ability or legality of US gov. action it directly
relates to the open and obvious participation of the public, without that participation
it is considered notorious and illegitimate.

ICANN fortunate or not under the APA must follow the same rules.  And if they do not,
all of their actions are subject to revocation and or a finding of illegitimacy

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> No one is talking about what the government can legally do and what it can't
> legally do, Eric.
>
> We are talking about whether it is appropriate or inappropriate for
> ICANN to do or consider doing.
>

Oh most definately we are good sir.

>
> --
> 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 16:28:04 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] . ORG Straw Poll

>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.

Thank you, Roberto for  your tabulation of the opinions expressed by named
GA members. It was a lot of work.

I hope you do not consider the additional anonymous straw poll that is
currently up in the Polling Booth premature (i.e. not sufficiently
discussed), but if you would kindly encourage GA members to use the poll
(and the comment line) at www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/ we will have
additional input to give to the NC and the Board on this highly charged
subject.
The additional advantage is that you don't have to do the counting work. :-)

- --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 23:28:03 -0800
From: "Cindy Merry" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Straw Poll - .Org charter/policy/practice change...

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]

- --
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 21:35:29 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] . ORG Straw Poll

Hello Joop,

I'd much rather see the postings made to the list about their
opinions, since those are on the record and have their names attached
to them, which is important for validation.

That said, I'm not opposing it just because this is you doing it on
your booth.  I simply think that the most important thing is to show
something on the record where those participating and expressing an
opinion can be properly identified, counted, and authenticated.

The overwhelming sense of these posts to the lists makes it clear I
was correct in my analysis.

Wednesday, March 28, 2001, 8:28:04 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

>>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.

> Thank you, Roberto for  your tabulation of the opinions expressed by named
> GA members. It was a lot of work.

> I hope you do not consider the additional anonymous straw poll that is
> currently up in the Polling Booth premature (i.e. not sufficiently
> discussed), but if you would kindly encourage GA members to use the poll
> (and the comment line) at www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/ we will have
> additional input to give to the NC and the Board on this highly charged
> subject.
> The additional advantage is that you don't have to do the counting work. :-)

> --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

- -- 
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 02:17:52 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Fw: Names Council vote

[David Farrar] 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.

[Joanna Lane] I would like to add my thanks to each of the nine members of
the NC who voted in favor of the following Resolution. As a direct result of
your actions and input from other sources, including Wg-Review, I have no
doubt that the BoD will give very careful consideration indeed to their
decision.

RESOLUTION
>"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)
>

- --
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 02:36:40 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: Names Council vote

Joanna and all remaining assembly members,

  Maybe and maybe not.  Let hope so.  However given Sen. Burns
letter to Don Evans (DOC) it may really not matter...  Given that
letter and the possible subsequent action from DOC, I think that
any future action from the ICANN BoD on anything is in jeopardy.

Joanna Lane wrote:

> [David Farrar] 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.
>
> [Joanna Lane] I would like to add my thanks to each of the nine members of
> the NC who voted in favor of the following Resolution. As a direct result of
> your actions and input from other sources, including Wg-Review, I have no
> doubt that the BoD will give very careful consideration indeed to their
> decision.
>
> RESOLUTION
> >"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)
> >
>
> --
> 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 10:40:05 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

Dear Marlin Kade,
this is an example of the idea behind changing the .org charter. Let 
suppose that Bush would consider to  introduce a Sex Equality Bill giving 
female naming responsibility to a non profit organization selected by 
Charlton Heston with a charter to change every female's name in a strong 
male name.
Would you want to read the proposed piece of legislation before commenting 
on it or oppose?
Cheers.
Jefsey

On 02:37 29/03/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:

>I'm not voting in this particular round.  If there had been an option to
>have the community undertake an indepth consideration of the charter, I
>would have supported that. It's possible the  outcome would be the same but
>I can't forecast.  In the meantime, please show me, therefore as "abstain".
>
>cheers,
>
>Marilyn
>--
>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: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:45:20 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

This is why there is no other solution than:
- -  iCANN incorporating as the association of the national NICs (ccTLD, IP 
addressing, local/private TLD managing facilities, internet community 
services, etc...) and gTLDs at a lower degree.
- - that association requesting the UN NGO status.

I note that the USG legitimacy (as per Hans Klein at least) over the 
Internet comes from two points:
- -  the IP addressing scheme the international and social complexity and 
technical correlations of which are such that it is definitly an issue for 
the ITU/T
- -  a missing (?) loop in the current BIND version that anyone may add, so 
the root may be loaded as several root-file subsets. Once these may 10 
lines of code aree added the unicity of the root is preserved but the 
multiplicity of its origines is built-in. The role of the iCANN is then to 
make sure (according to its equal treatment to all charter) that all the 
subsets are presented in a proper format and there is no TLD naming 
conflicts. All the current work with UDRP, Registrars and new TLD is QA by 
a proheminent body: proposing solutions, control, label for the market to 
better chose and be served.

In a nutshell, iCANN is not to "protect" us, but to serve us.
Jefsey

On 09:43 29/03/01, Eric Dierker said:
>Bill, May I call you that?
>
>For some reason you miss the correlation between public input and what the 
>government
>can do.  I don't know why but for some reason I thought you were a 
>moderately mature
>American who had understood this concept.
>
>I apologize for any assumption.  For anyone lost in this concept let me 
>make it
>perfectly clear; when we speak of the ability or legality of US gov. 
>action it directly
>relates to the open and obvious participation of the public, without that 
>participation
>it is considered notorious and illegitimate.
>
>ICANN fortunate or not under the APA must follow the same rules.  And if 
>they do not,
>all of their actions are subject to revocation and or a finding of 
>illegitimacy
>
>"William X. Walsh" wrote:
>
> > No one is talking about what the government can legally do and what it 
> can't
> > legally do, Eric.
> >
> > We are talking about whether it is appropriate or inappropriate for
> > ICANN to do or consider doing.
> >
>
>Oh most definately we are good sir.
>
> >
> > --
> > 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: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:45:35 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[8]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:33:54 -0800, you wrote:

>At 03:42 AM 3/28/2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>In favour of the change of the charter of .org: 0
>
>Has anyone noticed that the subject line does not match the focus of 
>discussion?
>
>That's not a minor matter of bookkeeping.  It underscores a missed opportunity.
>
>The Verisign contract alternative does not mandate any change in the 
>charter of .org.
>
>People have spent essentially all of their time arguing about a matter that 
>is not part of the contract consideration and have literally ignored the 
>major features that ARE subject to change by the alternative contract.

I think you should say "some people".  For my part I have hardly
mentioned the *.org issue at all and have on many occasions debated
the significant features of the proposed agreements.

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:50:24 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Council vote

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:55:50 -0600, you wrote:

>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?

Speaking personally I was very saddened by the ccTLDs voting in favour
of it because the reasons put forward seem to be that the main
consideration was what would be good for ccTLDs not what would be good
for the internet community as a whole.

The ccTLDs debate mainly focused on the fact that Verisign would have
it fee cap removed and hence the ccTLDs are less likely to be asked to
increase funding of ICANN.

I personally think the ccTLDs are the ones who should be most worried
by what has happened as they are being asked to cede policy rights to
ICANN and this process has shown that ICANN appears to have a very
narrow view of what is policy and what is contract.

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:30:45 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[8]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

David Farrar wrote:
>
>On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:33:54 -0800, you [Dave Crocker] wrote:
>
> >At 03:42 AM 3/28/2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >>In favour of the change of the charter of .org: 0
> >
> >Has anyone noticed that the subject line does not match the focus of
> >discussion?
> >
> >That's not a minor matter of bookkeeping.  It underscores a missed 
>opportunity.
> >
> >The Verisign contract alternative does not mandate any change in the
> >charter of .org.
> >
> >People have spent essentially all of their time arguing about a matter 
>that
> >is not part of the contract consideration and have literally ignored the
> >major features that ARE subject to change by the alternative contract.
>
>I think you should say "some people".  For my part I have hardly
>mentioned the *.org issue at all and have on many occasions debated
>the significant features of the proposed agreements.

May I confirm David Farrar's comment.
In my message, few lines after the line quoted by Dave Crocker, I gave the 
list of the 34 members who participated in the discussion without mentioning 
the .org charter.
Incidentally, the discussion on the .org charter is getting weight now, that 
our output has been already given to NC, and that NC has already given its 
output to ICANN.
At this point in time, the matter is in order, methinks.

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 #317
************************