Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #332
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, April 2 2001            Volume 01 : Number 332

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

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 13:32:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Alejandro Pisanty - CUAED y FQ, UNAM" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Updated ICANN site

Hi!

did. Balance between sending too little and sending too much
difficult. Will take point again.

Alejandro Pisanty

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty 
UNAM  -  Educacion Abierta y a Distancia
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
Tel. (+52-5) 622-8713, 622-8633 Fax 550-8405

http://www.cuaed.unam.mx
- ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isocmex.org.mx, www.isoc.org
=====>>> Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
- ---->> Internet y Sociedad? www.istf.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: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 16:36:58 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN not a Governing Body

Jefsey I urge caution here,

The definition of Governing is really a very tough issue and we have to
be straight
on it.  We grappled with this, and to my understanding there was no
consensus,
within the WG-Review.

In one context we simply mean guidance, in another we mean a dictator. 
Also the
term leaves pejorative feelings.  Here, the Republicans don't like
government and
the Democrats do.  But that is not true at all they both love
government, that is
what they do after all, but not really.  Think of that particular word,
governess
or that device they place on vehicles and engines called a governor. 
Remember just
a little bit ago, the term governor was like a respectful greeting to a
man who
governed his estate, no matter how small, I think Dickens made great use
of the
term to delineate social classification.

My point is that if we stick ICANN into or out of a classification then
we cause
problems that are not necessary.  When I write policy, and this is a
secret, when I
do not want to make it too specific I use the term Government.  If my
children did
not have their wonderful mother I would be a dictator, but alas I am
only an
advisory body to her governance, but nevertheless I help govern and so
does ICANN.

I hope this clarifies and does not cause derisiveness gov.

ICANN makes major contributions to the policy and governance of the
Internet. Most
assuredly someone or something must, or we have anarchy.  Which is why
we must
welcome Mr. Corliss, we must embrace these alternative netstyle guys, or
we start
walking a bad road to no "Governance". (as in no self restraint &
embattlement).

The APA applies when the U.S. "gov" lets someone else practice control
over a U.S. resource.  From running the Colorado on a boat through the
grand canyon, to cattle graizing leases, to Satellites and Super
Computers this is how we do it.  Therefor technically we may be correct
in saying it is not a governing body, but that is all we get - a
technical distinction, like some lawyer might make. Nothing helpful to
understanding.

IMHO Sincerely,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Patrick,
>
> On 15:26 01/04/01, Patrick Corliss said:
> >Hi Jefsey
> >ll start by changing the subject heading to align with the thread, if I may.
>
> I will revert the subject to something appropriate: as I never considered and
> will never consider the iCANN as a governing body. My whole attitude is
> based upon the fact that iCANN is not a governing bidy and those trying to
> make it a governing body through (among others) :
> - relations with USG and GAC
> - TLD model
> - UDRP standardization
> - letter to givernements
> - Plan B
> - .org review
> - .biz take away
> etc.. etc...
> are hurting deeply the Internet, the iCANN interests and the network stability.
>
> >On Sunday, April 01, 2001 10:19 AM (AEST), Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >Subject: Re: ITU and BIND configs (Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract)
> >On 14:10 29/03/01, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
> > > >as new.net has demonstrated, they WILL conflict, unless one has a
> > > >governing body that ensures they don't. And if so - what is the
> > improvement?
> > > New.net is obviously a wrong example since they are not at root level. I am
> > > surprised that the Chirman of the IEFT may use such a ploy to support his
> > > point. Either your point is good and please use relevant example, or your
> > > point is not and please do not try to confuse the issues.
> >I think you are a little unfair to Harald here.  New.Net is a perfectly valid
> >example as it does use a root zone and has got 18 colliders.  But even if it
> >didn't, or was otherwise a poor example, Harald's substantive point
> >remains and
> >must be addressed.  I've tackled it one way already - this is a different
> >approach.
>
> 1.  As you know New.net is not using a root. This is why it it is not a good
>      example. China could be one. Embarassing but good example.
> 2. If you read my response to Harald I further on say that his point is
> relevant
>      (if  the example is not) and I addressed it.
>
> Now you take other Harlad's points from another threat. These points were well
> taken and relevant. They just forgot the "date rule". The whole inclusive
> system
> relies on the date of first use in the network. If someone breaks the rule he
> is commonly considered as the bad guy. BTW that rule is universal and is
> the basis for IP. As long as we are among civilized people, this rule is
> enough.
> There may be conflicts but people may solve them based upon that rule.
>
> Now when that rule is denied by a leading participant like iCANN in the
> ".biz" take away case we have a true problem.
>
> But the problem is not with the people Harald is questionning. The problem
> is with the pople Harald is supporting. So I suppose Harald may help with
> a response (I do not pull his leg here: there are some existing solutions
> within the iCANN in case of iCANN unfair behaviour. These solutions have
> published rules which may be used in courts. Today that kind of action
> by iCANN lead to inquiries by the Senate and Congress and - to some
> extents - to comments by several GAC Members and EU).
>
> >Harald's point is:  When there are no enforceable rules (such as you might
> >have
> >in a tightly controlled centraised system) how can you stop people setting
> >up a
> >new root zone which collides with all the others.   Money talks, bulldust
> >walks.
> >
> >Unless and until the alternate root people, or their supporters, can develop a
> >workable and effective solution to that problem then it will continue to be
> >raised.  And that's fair.  In fact it is the core question to be addressed.
> >
> >Off the top of my head I can see several possible real-world approaches which,
> >alone or in combination, could provide a result (if not a solution):
> >
> >(1)    Technical.  If you look at Alternic's TLD finder (say for ".com" or
> >".web") who you will see that it queries multiple roots:
> >http://www.alternic.org/tldfinder.html
> >
> >This shows that it would be possible to write a browser which will produce a
> >list of all domain names held by conflicting TLDs in whatever root they
> >reside.
> >If I had some VC that's exactly what I would do.
>
> I am afraid not. Such a system is based upon a list of RSCs. If the one
> offering the system does not list all the different roots (would iCANN list
> all the roots alternic is ???) results are differents.
>
> >There are no doubt other technical solutions including overlaying a directory
> >over the DNS as is done by Realnames.  I'm sure that will end up being the
> >solution for multilingual domains.  And I would not discount your comments
> >(which I haven't studied) on BIND software solutions.
>
> I am sorry you did not. I am not commenting a technical solution.
>
> I just state and remind everyine that if we add  (as Jeff Williams says) 36
> lines
> of code into the named program code the whole philosophy of the Internet is
> changed, the USG claims are irrelevant, the iCANN is deeply to be reviewed,
> Plan B must be deeply modified and the Protocol is actually meaningless on
> a few key elements.
>
> A few other lines added elesewhere would the same way kill the IP
> strategy and UDRPs.
>
> Again, the constitution of the Internet is writen in the source code.
> And bytes are carried by machines and lines not by laws and contracts.
> Forgeting that is the real problem of the Staff.
>
> Any paperwork you do to curb technical innovations will never stand,
> all themore if that innovation provides some good financial returns.
>
> Jefsey
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 17:09:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Candidate Questions

Joanna --

	I've posted on the GA list from time to time recently; FWIW, I
guess the last thing you may have read from me were some comments I sent
to Danny Younger that he was good enough to forward to the ga and
wg-review lists on my behalf.  Folks who want to know more about me should
look at my web page <http://www.law.wayne.edu/weinberg>, which includes
links to stuff I've written about ICANN and a bunch of comments I've filed
with ICANN.  It seems to me that the most important function of the GA
chair is to try to facilitate the work of the list through his
participation on the list, and I intend to do that if folks elect me.  
(That surely doesn't exclude the co-chair playing an active role as well,
though.)  As I said in my statement accepting the nomination
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc01/msg00009.html>, I
can't commit to attending all of the physical meetings, so I'll need to
rely on the co-chair for those.

Jon

On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, Joanna Lane wrote:

> Dear Mr. Weinberg,
> The role of GA Chair ranges from hi-profile to fairly mundane. While your
> qualifications are not in doubt,  I notice that you have not been active on
> the GA ML or filed any public comments for some time. My concern is that
> heavy commitments elsewhere will impact your ability to fulfill all the
> requirements of the role over an extended period of time.
> Question: Do you foresee managing all day to day GA Chair functions
> personally, or would you need to delegate some aspects to the Co-Chair? If
> so, which and to whom?
> Thank you,
> Joanna Lane
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 

Jonathan Weinberg
[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: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:13:26 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ITU and BIND configs (Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract)

At 02:19 01/04/2001 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>New.net is obviously a wrong example since they are not at root level. I 
>am surprised that the Chirman of the IEFT may use such a ploy to support 
>his point.

ns1.earthlink.net, which belongs to an organization that new.net claims as 
a supporter, responds to a query for NS records of shop. with the reply 
that shop. has NS records pointing to udns1.newdotnet.net and 
udns2.newdotnet.net

Care to define how you understood "at root level"?

>Harald, what I say is simply that if BIND was written in a slightly 
>different way, the whole conception of the iCANN and the USG will be 
>different. Exactly like if the use of the DNS was slightly different the 
>whole TM issue would be different. This you should undestand and know. 
>(Will I have some spare time, I will pick and change my named code and use 
>it for my own root).

Please.....if the DNS (as defined by RFC 1035 and associates) had been 
slightly different, it would not have been the DNS.
And if men were more friendly, we would have less anger.
So what?

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand       At Cisco  : [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94               IETF chair: [email-masked]
Which of me do you want?      Just me   : [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: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 22:53:50 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] If that is a motion, I second it.  If not, I make it.

At 15:54 31/03/2001 -0600, Weisberg wrote:

>Or, if this is subject to discretion (as previously demonstrated), I
>support
>
> > waiving the message limit for the four candidates during this week.

The list monitor has no plans to raise complaint against any of the 4 
candidates for excessive posting during this week.

Note that:

- - If other people complain, the list monitor will have to evaluate the
   situation. But discretion will be applied.
- - This applies ONLY to the four candidates
- - All the other list rules remain in force.

Thank you for raising the point.
- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand       At Cisco  : [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94               IETF chair: [email-masked]
Which of me do you want?      Just me   : [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: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:48:57 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN not a Governing Body

On 01:36 02/04/01, Eric Dierker said:
>Jefsey I urge caution here,

Urge, urge, plase. You will not change reality.

>The definition of Governing is really a very tough issue and we have to
>be straight on it.  We grappled with this, and to my understanding there
>was no consensus, within the WG-Review.

A consensus is a photography of people's positions. I just state the
reality of my position.

>In one context we simply mean guidance, in another we mean a
>dictator. Also the term leaves pejorative feelings.  Here, the Republicans
>don't like government and the Democrats do.  But that is not true at all
>they both love government, that is what they do after all, but not really.

Your US situation and problem.. No more impact on the Internet than
the way they consider that issue in 243 other countries round the
planet, isn't it?

>Think of that particular word, governess or that device they place on
>vehicles and engines called a governor. Remember just a little bit ago,
>the term governor was like a respectful greeting to a man who
>governed his estate, no matter how small, I think Dickens made great use
>of the term to delineate social classification.

5% of the world's culture. Did you ask yourself about the culture
behind the French initial meaning and its associated words:
gouvernance, gouverneur, gouvernorat, gouvernement, gouverne,
gouvernail, gouvernant, gouvernante ... and the  Spanish governador,
in Chinese, in Indish, in German, Italian, etc...

>My point is that if we stick ICANN into or out of a classification then
>we cause problems that are not necessary.  When I write policy, and
>this is a secret, when I do not want to make it too specific I use the
>term Government.

iCANN is everything but a Gov. Calling a brid a cat - however very
politician - will never solve any problem.

>If my children did not have their wonderful mother I would be a dictator,
>but alas I am only an advisory body to her governance, but nevertheless
>I help govern and so does ICANN.

NO. Unless at home the home keeper provides guidance to you
tell your wife.

>I hope this clarifies and does not cause derisiveness gov.

This may help you understanding that we disagree. But I am
not sure about the way you consider the iCANN.

>ICANN makes major contributions to the policy and governance
>of the Internet. Most assuredly someone or something must, or
>we have anarchy.

We certainly head towards anarchy because of iCANN attitude.
When the home keeper runs the show there is anarchy hiome.

>  Which is why we must welcome Mr. Corliss, we must embrace
>these alternative netstyle guys, or we start walking a bad road
>to no "Governance". (as in no self restraint & embattlement).

Sure we must welcome Patrick. I am a more "alternative
netstyle guy" than Patrick if you mean "inclusive" by "alternative"

>The APA applies when the U.S. "gov" lets someone else practice
>control over a U.S. resource.  From running the Colorado on a
>boat through the grand canyon, to cattle graizing leases, to
>Satellites and Super Computers this is how we do it.

The APA does not apply to the iCANN as the iCANN does not
manage any US resource. It only serve the USA as 243 other
countries in listing three or four lines about the ".us" zone
server in the master-root.

APA however may apply to some parts of the iCANN as long
as the US interests are concerned, as the French administrative
law applies as far as French telecom interests are involved,
as it is true in 242 other countries as well.

>Therefor technically we may be correct in saying it is not a
>governing body, but that is all we get - a technical distinction,
>like some lawyer might make. Nothing helpful to understanding.

White is white, black is black. There is a tale in French litterature
about a frog who wanted to be a bull and took more and more air
in its lungs to be larger and bigger. It just blown up. If we do not
help the iCANN to rememeber they are a frog, they will continue
to try looking like a bull and will blow up.

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 00:21:44 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Per Koelle <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN not a Governing Body

On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> On 01:36 02/04/01, Eric Dierker said:
> >Jefsey I urge caution here,
> 
> Urge, urge, plase. You will not change reality.
> 
> >The APA applies when the U.S. "gov" lets someone else practice
> >control over a U.S. resource.  From running the Colorado on a
> >boat through the grand canyon, to cattle graizing leases, to
> >Satellites and Super Computers this is how we do it.
> 
> The APA does not apply to the iCANN as the iCANN does not
> manage any US resource. It only serve the USA as 243 other
> countries in listing three or four lines about the ".us" zone
> server in the master-root.

So very true, and also so very sad, that ICANN will not accept this fact.

> 
> Jefsey
> 
> 

Med venlig hilsen

Per Kølle
Adm. direktør
DK Hostmaster A/S
e-mail: [email-masked]
tlf: +45 77 30 06 70
fax: +45 77 30 06 79

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

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

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 18:39:37 -0400
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN not a Governing Body

The APA does not apply to the iCANN as the iCANN does not
manage any US resource. It only serve the USA as 243 other
countries in listing three or four lines about the ".us" zone
server in the master-root.

APA however may apply to some parts of the iCANN as long
as the US interests are concerned, as the French administrative
law applies as far as French telecom interests are involved,
as it is true in 242 other countries as well.

Jefsey

Hi Jefsey,
Could you explain this please? I may have *misunderstood*, but I thought
that the master-root to which others are connected, are privately owned US
resource, therefore subject to APA, as is ICANN, being a US corporation. I'd
like to be clear about what parts of ICANN function are subject to APA, and
what parts are not.
Thanks,
Joanna

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

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

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 10:55:18 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ITU and BIND configs (Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign  contract)

At 23:13 1/04/01 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>
>Please.....if the DNS (as defined by RFC 1035 and associates) had been 
>slightly different, it would not have been the DNS.

Exactly. Too often we forget what enormous economic value has been created
with the fundamental concept of the DNS. 
Not a "National" value, but still a value that needs to be overseen,
(governed) and where inevitable conflicts need to be resolved, fairly and
in a way that overcomes the paralysis of  being unable to sort out national
jurisdictions.

No matter how much we may hate lawyers and hope that technical solutions
can be written instead of legal ones, this is fundamentally wrong. 
The technical solution providers are not supposed to be dictators and what
the lawyers are supposed to provide is a framework for stakeholder
participation.

This was the premise of the White Paper on which ICANN was founded, but
which it has not yet fulfilled.
Individuals have participated in good faith, but......

>And if men were more friendly, we would have less anger.

Indeed. 

>So what?
>
Always try to remain friendly :-)
So much more gets accomplished.

- --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: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 20:12:02 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN not a Governing Body

I grow stupid in that I cannot help people understand the area that I truly do
understand.

Whether we like it or not, the U.S. Government owns the Internet.  I ask all who
disagree to contact our lawyers, Touton and Sims and ask their opinion and from
what my lawyer told me they have about 48 hours to get back to you, otherwise
they are neglectful. Remember we are the clients not the Board.

Jefsey, the way you ignore this reality, is dreaming.  Yes your French language
concepts add to the debate about how Gov and all it's uses are varying.

But we have to deal in reality here, if the USG does not own the resource of the
Internet, who does?  Are you saying it is like outer space?  Are you saying that
it is all free enterprise?

Sincerely,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> The APA does not apply to the iCANN as the iCANN does not
> manage any US resource. It only serve the USA as 243 other
> countries in listing three or four lines about the ".us" zone
> server in the master-root.
>
> APA however may apply to some parts of the iCANN as long
> as the US interests are concerned, as the French administrative
> law applies as far as French telecom interests are involved,
> as it is true in 242 other countries as well.
>
> Jefsey
>
> Hi Jefsey,
> Could you explain this please? I may have *misunderstood*, but I thought
> that the master-root to which others are connected, are privately owned US
> resource, therefore subject to APA, as is ICANN, being a US corporation. I'd
> like to be clear about what parts of ICANN function are subject to APA, and
> what parts are not.
> Thanks,
> Joanna
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 20:24:17 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Candidate Questions

Well that just ends the debate right there, I feel like Sam Houston, or lowly Mr.
Mao or maybe Mr. Ghandhi (sorry about american english spelling) or Mr. Juarez.
I would be happy to shine these mens', Corliss and Weinberg's shoes but I do not
belong in the same league, maybe one of them could ask me to be their co-chair to
take care of their calender. {yes this is sarcastic to press a point I am only
serious abut the concept not the specifics}

OTOH maybe they all should talk to my friends, maybe they should correspond with
me and my kind, maybe WE need a chair? think of it do we need a chair that is
connected upwards or one that is connected downwards.

I feel like slamming my shoe in the kitchen debate.  What the heck does bottom-up
and stakeholders mean anyway.  I think I am missing something, either that or
they are missing something.

There is nothing wrong with being a great man like Mr. Weinberg, it is just that
this is the GA.  Not the U.S. Senate.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

> Joanna --
>
>         I've posted on the GA list from time to time recently; FWIW, I
> guess the last thing you may have read from me were some comments I sent
> to Danny Younger that he was good enough to forward to the ga and
> wg-review lists on my behalf.  Folks who want to know more about me should
> look at my web page <http://www.law.wayne.edu/weinberg>, which includes
> links to stuff I've written about ICANN and a bunch of comments I've filed
> with ICANN.  It seems to me that the most important function of the GA
> chair is to try to facilitate the work of the list through his
> participation on the list, and I intend to do that if folks elect me.
> (That surely doesn't exclude the co-chair playing an active role as well,
> though.)  As I said in my statement accepting the nomination
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc01/msg00009.html>, I
> can't commit to attending all of the physical meetings, so I'll need to
> rely on the co-chair for those.
>
> Jon
>
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > Dear Mr. Weinberg,
> > The role of GA Chair ranges from hi-profile to fairly mundane. While your
> > qualifications are not in doubt,  I notice that you have not been active on
> > the GA ML or filed any public comments for some time. My concern is that
> > heavy commitments elsewhere will impact your ability to fulfill all the
> > requirements of the role over an extended period of time.
> > Question: Do you foresee managing all day to day GA Chair functions
> > personally, or would you need to delegate some aspects to the Co-Chair? If
> > so, which and to whom?
> > Thank you,
> > Joanna Lane
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
> Jonathan Weinberg
> [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: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 21:18:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Candidate Questions

On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Joop wrote:
> Excellent question.
> If you could express a preference for co-chair on the basis of the solid
> and serious work you have seen from the other candidates (especially in the
> WG-review), it would sure give a good indication to the voters, both about
> yourself and about your preferred co-chair.

Joop --

	I think I'd better decline this one.  The voters in the ga have
had ample ability to figure out what they think about all four of us; I'd
rather defer to the wisdom of this group as to who they think would be
best, than to skew that choice by interjecting my own views.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 01:45:17 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Most people here should have seen the announcement that despite explicit 
statements that no changes were possible to the Verisign agreements ("it was A 
or B - there is no C") ICANN management and Verisign have negiotated some 
changes which they have just announced.  The Board now has a full 24 hours to 
analyse these new agreements and vote on them with no input from the DNSO.

I beleive Verisign should agree to a 30 or 60 day extension to the 18 May 
deadline to allow consideration of these new changes.  Yes Verisign said they 
would not agree to an extension previously but they also said that no further 
changes would be considered.

I am extremely nervous about the possibility of ICANN Board having to vote on 
such huge and critical issues with less than 24 hours to analyse the changes.

DPF

From: [email-masked] 
To: "ICANN Announcement List" <[email-masked]>  
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 16:38:02 -0700 
Subject: [icann-announce] Proposed Revisions to ICANN-VeriSign Agreements 

On 1 March 2001, ICANN posted a proposal to revise the agreements
between ICANN and VeriSign.  The announcement appears at
<http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm>. 
ICANN has posted a web page, with links to relevant source documents and
a series of FAQs about the proposal at
<http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm>.  

Among the items just posted is correspondence from yesterday and today
between Stuart Lynn (ICANN's CEO) and Stratton Sclavos (VeriSign's CEO)
regarding additional text changes to the proposed agreements and related
undertakings between ICANN and VeriSign.  The URLs for this
correspondence are:

<http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lynn-letter-to-sclavos-31mar01.htm>
<http://www.icann.org/correspondence/sclavos-letter-to-lynn-01apr01.htm>
<http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lynn-letter-to-sclavos-01apr01.htm>

                                  ###

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

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

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 18:51:40 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] ICANN not a Governing Body

Hello Eric,

Sunday, April 01, 2001, 8:12:02 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> I grow stupid in that I cannot help people understand the area that I truly do
> understand.

> Whether we like it or not, the U.S. Government owns the Internet.  I ask all who
> disagree to contact our lawyers, Touton and Sims and ask their opinion and from
> what my lawyer told me they have about 48 hours to get back to you, otherwise
> they are neglectful. Remember we are the clients not the Board.

You couldn't be farther from the truth on either point.

- -- 
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: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 21:33:57 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN not a Governing Body

> Hi Jefsey,
> Could you explain this please? I may have *misunderstood*, but I
> thought that the master-root to which others are connected, are
> privately owned US resource, therefore subject to APA, as is 
ICANN,
> being a US corporation. I'd like to be clear about what parts of 
ICANN
> function are subject to APA, and what parts are not. Thanks, 
Joanna
> 
>

Hi Joanna:

ICANN is a private corporation and not subject to the APA, just as 
NSI was not.

Even DoC is claiming it is not subject to the APA,but we are 
questioning that issue, as is Senator Burns.  The reason for the 
establishment of Icann, according to Representative Pickering at 
the Februrary 8 hearing, was to avoid the APA.  I found that to be 
very interesting indeed.

Leah

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

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

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 21:43:09 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN not a Governing Body

Erik:

The US government owns only what equipment it owns.  The DoC 
controls the a-root server, that is true, and therefore has the 
largest market share of users.  If people begin to choose to look at 
other roots, the USG still controls only the one system.  They also 
control com/net/org/edu.  

The Internet, however is not owned by anyone.

The telcos own the copper, fiber and switching.  Individuals and 
corporations own networks.

Satellites are owned by a myriad of entities, including governments 
and corporations.

Anyone, anywhere with connectivity can communicate with anyone 
anywhere with connectivity.  Anyone can set up a network of 
computers/servers.  Anyone can set up a root and root server 
system.  They own their own networks.  Those networks can 
communicate with other networks.

Government owns very little of the Internet, but the USG controls 
the most widely used rootzone and the three most widely used 
TLDs.  Why?  cause it's what everyone got used to.

Leah

> I grow stupid in that I cannot help people understand the area that I
> truly do understand.
> 
> Whether we like it or not, the U.S. Government owns the Internet.  I
> ask all who disagree to contact our lawyers, Touton and Sims and ask
> their opinion and from what my lawyer told me they have about 48 hours
> to get back to you, otherwise they are neglectful. Remember we are the
> clients not the Board.
> 
> Jefsey, the way you ignore this reality, is dreaming.  Yes your French
> language concepts add to the debate about how Gov and all it's uses
> are varying.
> 
> But we have to deal in reality here, if the USG does not own the
> resource of the Internet, who does?  Are you saying it is like outer
> space?  Are you saying that it is all free enterprise?
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
> > The APA does not apply to the iCANN as the iCANN does not
> > manage any US resource. It only serve the USA as 243 other
> > countries in listing three or four lines about the ".us" zone
> > server in the master-root.
> >
> > APA however may apply to some parts of the iCANN as long
> > as the US interests are concerned, as the French administrative law
> > applies as far as French telecom interests are involved, as it is
> > true in 242 other countries as well.
> >
> > Jefsey
> >
> > Hi Jefsey,
> > Could you explain this please? I may have *misunderstood*, but I
> > thought that the master-root to which others are connected, are
> > privately owned US resource, therefore subject to APA, as is ICANN,
> > being a US corporation. I'd like to be clear about what parts of
> > ICANN function are subject to APA, and what parts are not. Thanks,
> > Joanna
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> --
> 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
> 

- --
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 #332
************************