Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #333
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, April 2 2001            Volume 01 : Number 333

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

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 22:17:05 -0400
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

what do you suggest we do about it?
Joanna

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 9:45 PM
To: [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

- --
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 22:28:02 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

This is a typical move for the ICANN board and Verisign.  Is there 
any way we can motion, second and present to the board?

> 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.ht
> m>
> <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/sclavos-letter-to-lynn-01apr01.ht
> m>
> <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lynn-letter-to-sclavos-01apr01.ht
> m>
> 
>                                   ###
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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

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

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 23:17:12 -0400 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

I'm just printing out to read the letters. They may be in response to the NC
requested changes in what I am calling "section two" of the NC
recommendation. I don't know yet.

But, if they are in response to changes suggested to the stakeholders, or
are clarifications to Option B, couldn't that also be good news?

I need to read the letters, and am going off to do that now.

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: JandL [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 10:28 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

This is a typical move for the ICANN board and Verisign.  Is there 
any way we can motion, second and present to the board?

> 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.ht
> m>
> <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/sclavos-letter-to-lynn-01apr01.ht
> m>
> <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lynn-letter-to-sclavos-01apr01.ht
> m>
> 
>                                   ###
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
- --
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 03:28:47 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

> I'm just printing out to read the letters. They may be in response to the NC
> requested changes in what I am calling "section two" of the NC
> recommendation. I don't know yet.
> 
> But, if they are in response to changes suggested to the stakeholders, or
> are clarifications to Option B, couldn't that also be good news?
> 
> I need to read the letters, and am going off to do that now.

They are partially in response to the Names Council resolution and the changes 
do provide better benefits to the Internet community.  Whether enough to make 
the entire revised package better than the status quo is not something I want 
to rush to judgement on and neither should the Board IMO.

Many of us did not bother suggesting improvements because it was said in no 
uncertain terms none at all would be considered.  If stakeholders had known 
the "non negotiable" agreements were negotiable then quite a different set of 
feedback may have been provided.

There is now no opportunity for the Names Council or any constituency to give 
meaningful input to the Board as to whether this latest set of changes 
partially or wholely meets their concerns.  

DPF

- --
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 23:32:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

this is the critical point.   See also my latest comments at
http://www.icannwatch.org

On Mon, 2 Apr 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

> 
> Many of us did not bother suggesting improvements because it was said in no 
> uncertain terms none at all would be considered.  If stakeholders had known 
> the "non negotiable" agreements were negotiable then quite a different set of 
> feedback may have been provided.
> 
> There is now no opportunity for the Names Council or any constituency to give 
> meaningful input to the Board as to whether this latest set of changes 
> partially or wholely meets their concerns.  
> 
> 

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:52:37 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The Question is HOW

Hi Jefsey

I am surprised that you pass over the high level view expressed in my original
posting.  Little you have said addresses the problem of how we, as a community,
should deal with the issue that Harald Tveit Alverstrand has quite rightly
raised:

> > > 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?

As you were getting diverted, I rephrased the issue to be more understandable:

> 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.

As Harald has commented to me privately (reproduced with kind permission):

"You have problems now dealing with individuals with nothing at stake but
personal pride.  How will you deal with people who have invested a million
dollars into a scheme, and are ready to spend another million to scheme against
you?"

As you are getting bogged down in semantics, an easy mistake to make, I will
simplify the question.   I really suggest (not "urge") that you address it.

The question is "HOW should we resolve the problem of people setting up
colliding TLDs:

        (a)  Technical
        (b)  Competition
        (c)  Negotiation, Co-operation
        (d)  Regulation
        (e)  Other ?"

It is my view that the answer to this question will determine the future of the
internet.  It will also allow us to determine the role of the General Assembly.

I am trying to be constructive and consensus building here.  I do apologise in
advance if it is my fault for not understanding your previous answers.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Cc: Diane M. Boling, TLDA <[email-masked]>; [GA] <[email-masked]>; Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 11:26 PM
Subject: [ga] ICANN as a Governing Body

> Hi Jefsey
>
> I'll start by changing the subject heading to align with the thread, if I may.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> (2)    Competition.  Most tidy minded, well-organised people don't like this
> solution.  If is happening in all sorts of industries such as mobile or cell
> phones, music recording etc.  That is the competitive shake-out.  This is a
true
> case of the "last one left standing" (Danny Younger).
>
> (3)    Negotiation, Co-operation.  Although I hold out hopes for (1), this is
my
> favoured approach.  It is what ICANN should be doing and isn't.
>
> (4)    Regulation.  The final solution is one that's lying in wait for us.
It's
> what we might consider as the "brute force approach".  Any government will
give
> us a chance but sooner or later they'll get criticised by THEIR constituency,
> the voters.  Examples easily spring to mind but the most obvious is the
> Australian government's decision to ban online internet gambling.
>
> Why did they do that, you ask?  Well, all I can say is you have to understand
> the realpolitik (I hope that's the right word) in Australia.  That starts with
a
> genuine understanding of the Australian Constitution, the taxation system and
> the balancing of multiple opposing forces.  I am not kidding when I say it was
> an almost inevitable move.  And one not easy to revoke -- now or later.
>
> You think it's just IP?  Of course not.  Gambling, alcohol, pornography,
drugs,
> are all likely contenders for Government regulation.  Those who have proposed
a
> classification system for websites are just in advance of the times.  It will
> happen, sooner or later.  Sorry -- make that "it's already happening".
>
> All it needs now is for the ACCC (Australian regulator) to mark ICANN's card
as
> a monopoly and the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.  In an
extreme
> case it could mean the end of the whole cosy setup from the Board down to the
> DNSO constituencies.  That's a small dark cloud on the far horizon.
>
> And anybody who doesn't appreciate the danger needs to look closely at the
> nearest "funny farm" because I'd question their capacity for logical thought.
> For those who are better informed I'd recommend attending a few courses on
risk
> management.   Many in the IT industry are familiar with these concepts.
>
> I am confident that what we do here, today, in the General Assembly, will
stamp
> out the future for Eric Dierker's children and my yet-to-be-born granchildren.
>
> Sincerely
> Patrick Corliss
>
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
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 00:02:50 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN not a Governing Body

all right I concede the point that there is no way to own the internet.  And
I tip my hat to the other options - other root servers. And Mr. Walsh I
apologize for over generalization.  I tend to speak in concepts of practical
reality, not technical correctness.  In the forties of the last century we
would say the mob owned Chicago. No one argued that they did not have title
to the L.  but no one argued that they did not control and for all purposes
control and govern the city.

It does not do progressive discussion any good to point out the faults of
the reality of which I spoke, this is not a debating society.  It is like
being adamant that ICANN does not govern, it is a great academic argument
but in the end to move ahead we have to evaluate how they govern not if they
do or not.

So let me put this forward and see if we can agree on this as a politically
correct way of saying it.

Unless otherwise stated, when someone refers to ICANN as a governing body;
they mean it in a very loose sense of the word. It means that they are
involved with decisions which affect how the internet is run.

Unless otherwise stated when someone refers to the USG owning the internet
it means that they have the largest controlling interest in how it is
operated.

Is that livable.

Sincerely,

JandL wrote:

> 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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:05:00 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Hi Marilyn

> I'm just printing out to read the letters. They may be in response to the NC
> requested changes in what I am calling "section two" of the NC
> recommendation. I don't know yet.
>
> But, if they are in response to changes suggested to the stakeholders, or
> are clarifications to Option B, couldn't that also be good news?
>
> I need to read the letters, and am going off to do that now.

I have read the three letters and it is very clear to me from the construction
of the first letter that ICANN staff have renegotiated the deal in a way that
was said to be impossible.  ICANN has also fudged the issue to suggest that
these are minor, procedural changes.

If the changes are minor and of no substance then they should not affect the
decision.  However, these changes are clearly stated as having been made with
the intention of making Option B more attractive.

So it looks, one again, as if last minute changes are rushed through with no
time for consideration or review by the participative, community-based
organisations (however faulty) set up for that purpose.

Clearly this make a joke out of the GA's role in the whole process.

Sincerely
Patrick Corliss

> Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JandL [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 10:28 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements
>
>
> This is a typical move for the ICANN board and Verisign.  Is there
> any way we can motion, second and present to the board?
>
> > 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.ht
> > m>
> > <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/sclavos-letter-to-lynn-01apr01.ht
> > m>
> > <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lynn-letter-to-sclavos-01apr01.ht
> > m>
> >
> >                                   ###
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 00:02:33 -0400
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Candidate Questions

Eric Dierker wrote:-
 think of it do we need a chair that is
connected upwards or one that is connected downwards.

[Joanna] Hi Eric,
The right answer is *both*. Personally, I'd like to see all four candidates
in the future development of the GA. This is an organization setting itself
up to represent millions of Internet stakeholders, all stakeholders, not
just those that ICANN recognizes currently through it's existing NC and
Constituency structure. Let's face it, running the GA is not a hobby. Until
such time as folks with interests in TLDA, .ORG, Multilingualism, Outreach
and Education, Individuals, Small business, and others, are recognized by
ICANN's SO as part of the consensus building process, it is the duty of the
incoming GA Chair to be all inclusive to those viewpoints in its output. For
the GA Chair to delegate particular responsibilities to members who have
identified themselves with particular topics, seems to me a sensible policy.

Sincerely,
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 00:13:46 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Let us all be serious here.  If you were negotiating, this is exactly how you would
do it on behalf of Verisign.

    So the question is, how do we as third party beneficiaries, counter the
proposal.  Shall we make one thread that our still acting chair can use to do his
best to send off our sentiments within the time frame. I know this is asking a lot
both in time and in regard to the beating he took with his last endeavor to get
something off in time.

Is there a more direct channel that we can take, or should take?

This group consists of the best and the brightest and we should be able to figure a
way to do more than complain.

Sincerely,

(believe me I use the term benficiary very tongue in cheek but I understand that
liguistically that is what we are)

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> this is the critical point.   See also my latest comments at
> http://www.icannwatch.org
>
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2001 [email-masked] wrote:
>
> >
> > Many of us did not bother suggesting improvements because it was said in no
> > uncertain terms none at all would be considered.  If stakeholders had known
> > the "non negotiable" agreements were negotiable then quite a different set of
> > feedback may have been provided.
> >
> > There is now no opportunity for the Names Council or any constituency to give
> > meaningful input to the Board as to whether this latest set of changes
> > partially or wholely meets their concerns.
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                        -->It's warm here.<--
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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 21:14:45 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] ICANN not a Governing Body

Hello Eric,

Monday, April 02, 2001, 12:02:50 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:
> Unless otherwise stated when someone refers to the USG owning the internet
> it means that they have the largest controlling interest in how it is
> operated.

> Is that livable.

No.  (Keeping it short, we've tossed this thing around too much
already).

- -- 
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: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 00:18:29 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Candidate Questions

I wish I said that!!

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Eric Dierker wrote:-
>  think of it do we need a chair that is
> connected upwards or one that is connected downwards.
>
> [Joanna] Hi Eric,
> The right answer is *both*. Personally, I'd like to see all four candidates
> in the future development of the GA. This is an organization setting itself
> up to represent millions of Internet stakeholders, all stakeholders, not
> just those that ICANN recognizes currently through it's existing NC and
> Constituency structure. Let's face it, running the GA is not a hobby. Until
> such time as folks with interests in TLDA, .ORG, Multilingualism, Outreach
> and Education, Individuals, Small business, and others, are recognized by
> ICANN's SO as part of the consensus building process, it is the duty of the
> incoming GA Chair to be all inclusive to those viewpoints in its output. For
> the GA Chair to delegate particular responsibilities to members who have
> identified themselves with particular topics, seems to me a sensible policy.
>
> Sincerely,
> 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: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 21:24:50 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Updated ICANN site

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> One of the goals of ICANNWatch (and the ICANNBlog, I'm sure) is to fill
> this gap - but I'd be happy to have less to do).

Yes, that's the primary reason why I started my daily web log. If anyone
wants an interim solution, you can find my updates here:

    http://www.lextext.com/icann

I usually update it every day. Like Michael, I'd be pleased to have ICANN
itself put me out of business.

     -- Bret

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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 00:28:51 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

to all-

at the names council meeting a few days ago, i suggested that, in business,
"everything is negotiable". based on inputs from our constituencies, we
proposed some changes that most of us could accept in order to give a
"go-ahead" for "option B". Yes, this is "option C"

It is my (personal) feeling that verisign would rather have some DNSO
support behind any board decision to go with option B in the face of all the
comments supporting "status quo" or option A.

Now, of course, we have another last-minute change that does not allow for
any DNSO input before the board's vote.

I certainly hope there is a 30 day "cooling off" period before any decision.

For all of us.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 11:29 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [email-masked]'; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

> I'm just printing out to read the letters. They may be in response to the
NC
> requested changes in what I am calling "section two" of the NC
> recommendation. I don't know yet.
>
> But, if they are in response to changes suggested to the stakeholders, or
> are clarifications to Option B, couldn't that also be good news?
>
> I need to read the letters, and am going off to do that now.

They are partially in response to the Names Council resolution and the
changes
do provide better benefits to the Internet community.  Whether enough to
make
the entire revised package better than the status quo is not something I
want
to rush to judgement on and neither should the Board IMO.

Many of us did not bother suggesting improvements because it was said in no
uncertain terms none at all would be considered.  If stakeholders had known
the "non negotiable" agreements were negotiable then quite a different set
of
feedback may have been provided.

There is now no opportunity for the Names Council or any constituency to
give
meaningful input to the Board as to whether this latest set of changes
partially or wholely meets their concerns.

DPF

- --
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 #333
************************