Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #338
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, April 3 2001            Volume 01 : Number 338

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

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 16:07:50 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

At 04:40 PM 4/2/2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
>Dave Crocker wrote:
> > These two items demonstrate the pervasive tendency to debate about
> > theoretical issues that have no factual basis in ICANN legal documents.
> >
> > As people claim to be serious participants, they should consider the
> > responsibility that participation carries, to be adequately educated about
> > the relevant fact, not theory.
>
>Generally speaking, your two last comments here are not only misguided but
>wrong.  Policy is about theory.

ICANN policy needs to pertain to practise, not abstract theory.

>The only factual basis that comes from  "legal
>documents" (I suppose you mean this as documents which are not illegal)

This suggests that you are not aware of the difference between legal 
documents and other types of documents, which carry no contractual, or the 
like, force.

>is the fact that the document exists.  A document does not create a fact.

Congratulations.  You've now stepped off into lands beyond comprehension.

Whatever it is you are trying to say and however it might be relevant to 
ICANN, the meaning escapes.

>As people claim to be serious participants, they should be made aware that
>just because an oldtimer says something does not make it so.  The GA needs to
>be more interested in what interested participants have to say and less on
>historical facts which impede progress.  The GA is not to be dominated by,
>technocrats, bureaucrats, businessmen, lawyers or lobbyists.  It is a General
>Assembly not any particular groups Assembly.

Well, I do thank you for making it clear that you view the ICANN 
environment as a sandbox for children, rather than as a serious forum for 
community pursuit of practical matters.

Thank you for playing.

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: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:29:19 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 03:40:21PM -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
> > >In fact, the board has the legal, moral, and and ethical DUTY to act
> > >without DNSO approval, if they find it is in the best interests of the
> > >Internet.  This is clearly spelled out in the Bylaws.
> >
> > These two items demonstrate the pervasive tendency to debate about
> > theoretical issues that have no factual basis in ICANN legal documents.
> >
> > As people claim to be serious participants, they should consider the
> > responsibility that participation carries, to be adequately educated about
> > the relevant fact, not theory.
> 
> Generally speaking, your two last comments here are not only misguided
> but wrong.  Policy is about theory.

I have no idea what you mean by that, or why you think it is important.

> The only factual basis that comes
> from "legal documents" (I suppose you mean this as documents which are
> not illegal) is the fact that the document exists.

"Legal document" is a common term meaning "document types that have
special significance in a legal context", like contracts, or documents 
like birth or marriage certificates that are placed in a public record.

Anyway, you have veered quite far from my original statement:

    "In fact, the board has the legal, moral, and and ethical DUTY to act
    without DNSO approval, if they find it is in the best interests of
    the Internet.  This is clearly spelled out in the Bylaws."

This is a fact.  Moreover, officers and directors of a corporation
always have a fiduciary duty to the corporation, a duty that is defined 
in laws concerning corporations.

The point is that the board has a fiduciary DUTY to look at the VRSN
proposals, regardless of what the DNSO says, and regardless of whether
"policy" is at issue.  Like it or not, the corporate officers are the
ones who have responsibility for the corporation, not the DNSO.

> As people claim to be serious participants, they should be made aware
> that just because an oldtimer says something does not make it so.  The
> GA needs to be more interested in what interested participants have to
> say and less on historical facts which impede progress.

Of course - that's the whole purpose of the GA -- to ignore facts ;-)

> The GA is not
> to be dominated by, technocrats, bureaucrats, businessmen, lawyers or
> lobbyists.  It is a General Assembly not any particular groups Assembly.

In fact, the GA is not dominated by technocrats, bureaucrats, 
businessmen, lawyers, or lobbyists.  

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 17:40:23 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 03:40:21PM -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
> > > >In fact, the board has the legal, moral, and and ethical DUTY to act
> > > >without DNSO approval, if they find it is in the best interests of the
> > > >Internet.  This is clearly spelled out in the Bylaws.
> > >
> > > These two items demonstrate the pervasive tendency to debate about
> > > theoretical issues that have no factual basis in ICANN legal documents.
> > >
> > > As people claim to be serious participants, they should consider the
> > > responsibility that participation carries, to be adequately educated about
> > > the relevant fact, not theory.
> >
> > Generally speaking, your two last comments here are not only misguided
> > but wrong.  Policy is about theory.
>
> I have no idea what you mean by that, or why you think it is important.
>

Let us be clear here, I wrote that "Policy is about theory".  The reason it is
important is because in order to help develop policy we have to know what it is.

> > The only factual basis that comes
> > from "legal documents" (I suppose you mean this as documents which are
> > not illegal) is the fact that the document exists.
>
> "Legal document" is a common term meaning "document types that have
> special significance in a legal context", like contracts, or documents
> like birth or marriage certificates that are placed in a public record.  The
> context in which the term "legal documents" was used and to which I was
> referring was not a legal context, and the documents were not specified.  That
> is why I made the statement for clarification.
>
> Anyway, you have veered quite far from my original statement:
>
>     "In fact, the board has the legal, moral, and and ethical DUTY to act
>     without DNSO approval, if they find it is in the best interests of
>     the Internet.  This is clearly spelled out in the Bylaws."
>
> This is a fact.  Moreover, officers and directors of a corporation
> always have a fiduciary duty to the corporation, a duty that is defined
> in laws concerning corporations.
>

Said laws also clearly mandate a membership, in that we are talking non-profit
here.  So there is a legal moral and ethical duty to have members and then
excercise that fiduciary duty to them.

>
> The point is that the board has a fiduciary DUTY to look at the VRSN
> proposals, regardless of what the DNSO says, and regardless of whether
> "policy" is at issue.  Like it or not, the corporate officers are the
> ones who have responsibility for the corporation, not the DNSO.
>
> > As people claim to be serious participants, they should be made aware
> > that just because an oldtimer says something does not make it so.  The
> > GA needs to be more interested in what interested participants have to
> > say and less on historical facts which impede progress.
>
> Of course - that's the whole purpose of the GA -- to ignore facts ;-)
>

Well it is easier that way and a lot more fun ;-)

>
> > The GA is not
> > to be dominated by, technocrats, bureaucrats, businessmen, lawyers or
> > lobbyists.  It is a General Assembly not any particular groups Assembly.
>
> In fact, the GA is not dominated by technocrats, bureaucrats,
> businessmen, lawyers, or lobbyists.
>

This I do not know to be a fact.

- --
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 20:42:21 -0400 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

While the GA is about where the participants are in their understanding of
issues, one can never disregard history, or reality and expect to achieve
effective results, and I know that wasn't your message at all.

Many of the GA  members have different amounts of time engagement and
differential involvements. Let's all continue to respect each other for
that, but remember that we have to also acknowledge what's transpired
before, so we can move forward.

Disregarding one another's perspectives doesn't achieve understanding.
Serious participation means different things to different people... I'm
trying to take all of "us" seriously.

Even when "the we" often disagrees. 

But legal documents, and historial facts are important.  And we should try
to be unemotional about how we look at those...

:-) 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 7:08 PM
To: Eric Dierker
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

At 04:40 PM 4/2/2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
>Dave Crocker wrote:
> > These two items demonstrate the pervasive tendency to debate about
> > theoretical issues that have no factual basis in ICANN legal documents.
> >
> > As people claim to be serious participants, they should consider the
> > responsibility that participation carries, to be adequately educated
about
> > the relevant fact, not theory.
>
>Generally speaking, your two last comments here are not only misguided but
>wrong.  Policy is about theory.

ICANN policy needs to pertain to practise, not abstract theory.

>The only factual basis that comes from  "legal
>documents" (I suppose you mean this as documents which are not illegal)

This suggests that you are not aware of the difference between legal 
documents and other types of documents, which carry no contractual, or the 
like, force.

>is the fact that the document exists.  A document does not create a fact.

Congratulations.  You've now stepped off into lands beyond comprehension.

Whatever it is you are trying to say and however it might be relevant to 
ICANN, the meaning escapes.

>As people claim to be serious participants, they should be made aware that
>just because an oldtimer says something does not make it so.  The GA needs
to
>be more interested in what interested participants have to say and less on
>historical facts which impede progress.  The GA is not to be dominated by,
>technocrats, bureaucrats, businessmen, lawyers or lobbyists.  It is a
General
>Assembly not any particular groups Assembly.

Well, I do thank you for making it clear that you view the ICANN 
environment as a sandbox for children, rather than as a serious forum for 
community pursuit of practical matters.

Thank you for playing.

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
- --
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 17:42:07 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 05:40:23PM -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
[...]
> > This is a fact.  Moreover, officers and directors of a corporation
> > always have a fiduciary duty to the corporation, a duty that is defined
> > in laws concerning corporations.
> >
> 
> Said laws also clearly mandate a membership, in that we are talking non-profit
> here. 

Sorry, that is simply incorrect.  Said laws do not mandate a 
membership.  It is perfectly legal to have a corporation without 
members.

> So there is a legal moral and ethical duty to have members and then
> excercise that fiduciary duty to them.

Nope.  

> > > The GA is not
> > > to be dominated by, technocrats, bureaucrats, businessmen, lawyers or
> > > lobbyists.  It is a General Assembly not any particular groups Assembly.
> >
> > In fact, the GA is not dominated by technocrats, bureaucrats,
> > businessmen, lawyers, or lobbyists.
> 
> This I do not know to be a fact.

Which of the above classes do you belong to?

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 18:18:11 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] legal document historical facts

Contract Between ICANN and the United States
 Government for Performance of the IANA Function

5. ESTIMATED PURCHASE ORDER VALUE

At the time of purchase order award, the estimated value of this
purchase order is under $10,000.

I am sure that this representation is appropriate. Could someone explain
why.  I find it very difficult to believe that all the services listed
in this Contract are only worth $10,000. I am also sure that it is
classification threshold.

Just these salaries alone shed some light on actual value of the
services;

7. KEY PERSONNEL

     (a) The Contractor shall assign to this purchase order, the
following key personnel:

          1. Michael M. Roberts
          2. Louis Touton
          3. Joyce K. Reynolds
          4. Suzanne Woolf

    Here are some facts that indicate, that silly USG thinks they own
the Internet, even though we all know they do not.

     (f) Termination for the Government's convenience. The Government
reserves the right to terminate this contract, or any part hereof,
     for its sole convenience. In the event of such termination, the
Contractor shall immediately stop all work hereunder and shall
     immediately cause any and all of its suppliers and subcontractors
to cease work. Subject to the terms of this contract, the Contractor
     shall be paid a percentage of the contract price reflecting the
percentage of the work performed prior to the notice of termination,
     plus reasonable charges that the Contractor can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Government, using its standard record
     keeping system, have resulted from the termination. The Contractor
shall not be required to comply with the cost accounting
     standards or contract cost principles for this purpose. This
paragraph does not give the Government any right to audit the
     Contractor's records. The Contractor shall not be paid for any work
performed or costs incurred that reasonably could have been
     avoided.

For you legal beagles, is Versign a subcontractor for these puposes?  If
they are there are some serious issues.

As for Policy,

          -This purchase order, in itself, does not authorize the
contractor to make substantive changes in established policy
          associated with the performance of the IANA functions.
Procedures for policy development will remain the subject of a
          Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between DOC and ICANN. The JPA
contemplates that the policy-development
          procedures developed under the JPA may result in adoption of
new or changed policies concerning Internet technical
          management functions. To the extent those policies require
alterations in the manner in which the IANA functions are
          performed, those alterations may be implemented upon mutual
agreement of the parties.

See I told you it is a lot more fun ignoring the facts.

Sincerely,

- --
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 21:20:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] legal document historical facts

In the past, ICANN charged a fee of $0 for this service. (That's not a
typo: it is "zero dollars".)  The contract is, however, of enormous
signficance, as it is one of the three legs on which ICANN's power rests,
and also a portion of its claim to "government contractor" status (and
immunities).

I assume that ICANN again charged $0, making this one of the oddest
"procurment" contracts I ever heard of.  But I have not seen a copy of the
renewed agreement.

On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Contract Between ICANN and the United States
>  Government for Performance of the IANA Function
> 
> 5. ESTIMATED PURCHASE ORDER VALUE
> 
> At the time of purchase order award, the estimated value of this
> purchase order is under $10,000.
> 
> I am sure that this representation is appropriate. Could someone explain
> why.  I find it very difficult to believe that all the services listed
> in this Contract are only worth $10,000. I am also sure that it is
> classification threshold.
> 
> Just these salaries alone shed some light on actual value of the
> services;
> 
> 7. KEY PERSONNEL
> 
>      (a) The Contractor shall assign to this purchase order, the
> following key personnel:
> 
>           1. Michael M. Roberts
>           2. Louis Touton
>           3. Joyce K. Reynolds
>           4. Suzanne Woolf
> 
>     Here are some facts that indicate, that silly USG thinks they own
> the Internet, even though we all know they do not.
> 
>      (f) Termination for the Government's convenience. The Government
> reserves the right to terminate this contract, or any part hereof,
>      for its sole convenience. In the event of such termination, the
> Contractor shall immediately stop all work hereunder and shall
>      immediately cause any and all of its suppliers and subcontractors
> to cease work. Subject to the terms of this contract, the Contractor
>      shall be paid a percentage of the contract price reflecting the
> percentage of the work performed prior to the notice of termination,
>      plus reasonable charges that the Contractor can demonstrate to the
> satisfaction of the Government, using its standard record
>      keeping system, have resulted from the termination. The Contractor
> shall not be required to comply with the cost accounting
>      standards or contract cost principles for this purpose. This
> paragraph does not give the Government any right to audit the
>      Contractor's records. The Contractor shall not be paid for any work
> performed or costs incurred that reasonably could have been
>      avoided.
> 
> For you legal beagles, is Versign a subcontractor for these puposes?  If
> they are there are some serious issues.
> 
> As for Policy,
> 
>           -This purchase order, in itself, does not authorize the
> contractor to make substantive changes in established policy
>           associated with the performance of the IANA functions.
> Procedures for policy development will remain the subject of a
>           Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between DOC and ICANN. The JPA
> contemplates that the policy-development
>           procedures developed under the JPA may result in adoption of
> new or changed policies concerning Internet technical
>           management functions. To the extent those policies require
> alterations in the manner in which the IANA functions are
>           performed, those alterations may be implemented upon mutual
> agreement of the parties.
> 
> See I told you it is a lot more fun ignoring the facts.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:16:07 -0400 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Here's my problem with this: I can't envison how to get evaluation, with
non disclosure, from a list. I'd like to get sound policy concerns,
articulated, and fact based, from the constitiencies, aand from the GA .. on
all major decisions. 

that means "organizing ourselves" and thinking through the difference
between policy analysis and advice, and trying to consult on board level
decisions.

isn't that why we elected them to be board members?

- -----Original Message-----
From: Paul Svensson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 8:52 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:

>At 10:23 PM 4/1/2001, DPF wrote:
>>The changes to the agreement are welcome but it would be a terrible
>>public policy example to agree to such changes with less than 24 hours
>>to consider and analyse them.
>
>Given that the changes are directly in line with the public requests, what 
>is the purpose of additional delay?

Dave,
The issue isn't if option C is an improvement on option B (which it
apparently seems to be), but whether it's an improvement on option A.
Which means, that even if it's obvious that it's a step in the right
direction, it may take more than 24 hours to analyze wether it goes
far enough.

	/Paul

- --
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 19:52:24 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 5:42 PM
> 
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 05:40:23PM -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
> [...]
> > > This is a fact.  Moreover, officers and directors of a corporation
> > > always have a fiduciary duty to the corporation, a duty 
> that is defined
> > > in laws concerning corporations.
> > >
> > 
> > Said laws also clearly mandate a membership, in that we are 
> talking non-profit
> > here. 
> 
> Sorry, that is simply incorrect.  Said laws do not mandate a 
> membership.  It is perfectly legal to have a corporation without 
> members.

Not for a California non-profit.

> > So there is a legal moral and ethical duty to have members and then
> > excercise that fiduciary duty to them.
> 
> Nope.  

Given the above ... incorrect.

> > > In fact, the GA is not dominated by technocrats, bureaucrats,
> > > businessmen, lawyers, or lobbyists.
> > 
> > This I do not know to be a fact.
> 
> Which of the above classes do you belong to?

01Apr01 was yesterday ...
- --
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 19:54:34 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] legal document historical facts

Hello Michael,

I was under the impression that a contract had to be an exchange of fair
valur for it to be binding. I $0.00 contract exchanges nothing.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 6:20 PM
> To: Eric Dierker
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] legal document historical facts
> 
> 
> In the past, ICANN charged a fee of $0 for this service. (That's not a
> typo: it is "zero dollars".)  The contract is, however, of enormous
> signficance, as it is one of the three legs on which ICANN's 
> power rests,
> and also a portion of its claim to "government contractor" status (and
> immunities).
> 
> I assume that ICANN again charged $0, making this one of the oddest
> "procurment" contracts I ever heard of.  But I have not seen 
> a copy of the
> renewed agreement.
> 
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
> 
> > Contract Between ICANN and the United States
> >  Government for Performance of the IANA Function
> > 
> > 5. ESTIMATED PURCHASE ORDER VALUE
> > 
> > At the time of purchase order award, the estimated value of this
> > purchase order is under $10,000.
> > 
> > I am sure that this representation is appropriate. Could 
> someone explain
> > why.  I find it very difficult to believe that all the 
> services listed
> > in this Contract are only worth $10,000. I am also sure that it is
> > classification threshold.
> > 
> > Just these salaries alone shed some light on actual value of the
> > services;
> > 
> > 7. KEY PERSONNEL
> > 
> >      (a) The Contractor shall assign to this purchase order, the
> > following key personnel:
> > 
> >           1. Michael M. Roberts
> >           2. Louis Touton
> >           3. Joyce K. Reynolds
> >           4. Suzanne Woolf
> > 
> >     Here are some facts that indicate, that silly USG 
> thinks they own
> > the Internet, even though we all know they do not.
> > 
> >      (f) Termination for the Government's convenience. The 
> Government
> > reserves the right to terminate this contract, or any part hereof,
> >      for its sole convenience. In the event of such termination, the
> > Contractor shall immediately stop all work hereunder and shall
> >      immediately cause any and all of its suppliers and 
> subcontractors
> > to cease work. Subject to the terms of this contract, the Contractor
> >      shall be paid a percentage of the contract price reflecting the
> > percentage of the work performed prior to the notice of termination,
> >      plus reasonable charges that the Contractor can 
> demonstrate to the
> > satisfaction of the Government, using its standard record
> >      keeping system, have resulted from the termination. 
> The Contractor
> > shall not be required to comply with the cost accounting
> >      standards or contract cost principles for this purpose. This
> > paragraph does not give the Government any right to audit the
> >      Contractor's records. The Contractor shall not be paid 
> for any work
> > performed or costs incurred that reasonably could have been
> >      avoided.
> > 
> > For you legal beagles, is Versign a subcontractor for these 
> puposes?  If
> > they are there are some serious issues.
> > 
> > As for Policy,
> > 
> >           -This purchase order, in itself, does not authorize the
> > contractor to make substantive changes in established policy
> >           associated with the performance of the IANA functions.
> > Procedures for policy development will remain the subject of a
> >           Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between DOC and 
> ICANN. The JPA
> > contemplates that the policy-development
> >           procedures developed under the JPA may result in 
> adoption of
> > new or changed policies concerning Internet technical
> >           management functions. To the extent those policies require
> > alterations in the manner in which the IANA functions are
> >           performed, those alterations may be implemented 
> upon mutual
> > agreement of the parties.
> > 
> > See I told you it is a lot more fun ignoring the facts.
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > 
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> 		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                        -->It's warm here.<--
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 00:23:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] legal document historical facts

I'm not a government contract expert, but they sometimes, even often, play
by different rules.

In any case, there are many non-monetary things one can exchange.  I
contract with you for an hour of my labor in exchange for an hour of
yours.  Binding contract.  So money isn't everything.

In any case, 'binding'-ness is a red herring here, since that comes into
play only if a party breaches and the other seeks damages or other
remedies, which is not going to happen in this contract.

On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Hello Michael,
> 
> I was under the impression that a contract had to be an exchange of fair
> valur for it to be binding. I $0.00 contract exchanges nothing.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> > [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 6:20 PM
> > To: Eric Dierker
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] legal document historical facts
> > 
> > 
> > In the past, ICANN charged a fee of $0 for this service. (That's not a
> > typo: it is "zero dollars".)  The contract is, however, of enormous
> > signficance, as it is one of the three legs on which ICANN's 
> > power rests,
> > and also a portion of its claim to "government contractor" status (and
> > immunities).
> > 
> > I assume that ICANN again charged $0, making this one of the oddest
> > "procurment" contracts I ever heard of.  But I have not seen 
> > a copy of the
> > renewed agreement.
> > 
> > On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
> > 
> > > Contract Between ICANN and the United States
> > >  Government for Performance of the IANA Function
> > > 
> > > 5. ESTIMATED PURCHASE ORDER VALUE
> > > 
> > > At the time of purchase order award, the estimated value of this
> > > purchase order is under $10,000.
> > > 
> > > I am sure that this representation is appropriate. Could 
> > someone explain
> > > why.  I find it very difficult to believe that all the 
> > services listed
> > > in this Contract are only worth $10,000. I am also sure that it is
> > > classification threshold.
> > > 
> > > Just these salaries alone shed some light on actual value of the
> > > services;
> > > 
> > > 7. KEY PERSONNEL
> > > 
> > >      (a) The Contractor shall assign to this purchase order, the
> > > following key personnel:
> > > 
> > >           1. Michael M. Roberts
> > >           2. Louis Touton
> > >           3. Joyce K. Reynolds
> > >           4. Suzanne Woolf
> > > 
> > >     Here are some facts that indicate, that silly USG 
> > thinks they own
> > > the Internet, even though we all know they do not.
> > > 
> > >      (f) Termination for the Government's convenience. The 
> > Government
> > > reserves the right to terminate this contract, or any part hereof,
> > >      for its sole convenience. In the event of such termination, the
> > > Contractor shall immediately stop all work hereunder and shall
> > >      immediately cause any and all of its suppliers and 
> > subcontractors
> > > to cease work. Subject to the terms of this contract, the Contractor
> > >      shall be paid a percentage of the contract price reflecting the
> > > percentage of the work performed prior to the notice of termination,
> > >      plus reasonable charges that the Contractor can 
> > demonstrate to the
> > > satisfaction of the Government, using its standard record
> > >      keeping system, have resulted from the termination. 
> > The Contractor
> > > shall not be required to comply with the cost accounting
> > >      standards or contract cost principles for this purpose. This
> > > paragraph does not give the Government any right to audit the
> > >      Contractor's records. The Contractor shall not be paid 
> > for any work
> > > performed or costs incurred that reasonably could have been
> > >      avoided.
> > > 
> > > For you legal beagles, is Versign a subcontractor for these 
> > puposes?  If
> > > they are there are some serious issues.
> > > 
> > > As for Policy,
> > > 
> > >           -This purchase order, in itself, does not authorize the
> > > contractor to make substantive changes in established policy
> > >           associated with the performance of the IANA functions.
> > > Procedures for policy development will remain the subject of a
> > >           Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between DOC and 
> > ICANN. The JPA
> > > contemplates that the policy-development
> > >           procedures developed under the JPA may result in 
> > adoption of
> > > new or changed policies concerning Internet technical
> > >           management functions. To the extent those policies require
> > > alterations in the manner in which the IANA functions are
> > >           performed, those alterations may be implemented 
> > upon mutual
> > > agreement of the parties.
> > > 
> > > See I told you it is a lot more fun ignoring the facts.
> > > 
> > > Sincerely,
> > > 
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> > A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> > +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
> >                        -->It's warm here.<--
> > 
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > 
> 

- -- 
		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: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 03:18:33 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 05:40:23PM -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > > > The GA is not
> > > > to be dominated by, technocrats, bureaucrats, businessmen, lawyers or
> > > > lobbyists.  It is a General Assembly not any particular groups Assembly.
> > >
> > > In fact, the GA is not dominated by technocrats, bureaucrats,
> > > businessmen, lawyers, or lobbyists.
> >
> > This I do not know to be a fact.
>
> Which of the above classes do you belong to?
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>

This in my mind is a fair question and for me poses no problem, as far as disclosure
goes.  Although I think that the average participant should not have to answer such
a question.  OTOH I do not understand why so many who participate here and work for
large corporations are so defensive about the reality of for whom they work. I
assume that is based in some history of which I am unfamiliar.

I work for a minimal wage, for Hi-Tek Mulitmedia. That is an Internet Marketing
company.  Believe it or not my most current assignments are writing policy for
countries developing their Informational Technology policies, and coordinating
educational programs for those same countries.  Of course I am not a career type
fellow so that could change tommorro.

Sincerely,

- --
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 #338
************************