Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #339
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, April 3 2001            Volume 01 : Number 339

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

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 23:57:57 +1000
From: "Erica Roberts" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Vote by the GA - preferences for a Chair and an Alternate Chair

It appears that the list of GA voters does not include all members of the GA
list.  I'd be interested to know how the list of voters is constructed and
why members of the list are not automatically included on the list of
voters.

erica
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 4:53 AM
Subject: [ga] Vote by the GA - preferences for a Chair and an Alternate
Chair

>
> GA Members,
>
> Starting today, 31 March 2001, the members of GA Voting Registry
> are voting to advise the Names Council of its preferences
> for a Chair and an Alternate Chair to the General Assembly.
>
> The Basic Outline of the Election Process has been sent out
> to the members of GA Voting Registry, followed by individual
> ballots.
>
> The adopted Election Rules state:
>     Voting is secret; only the secretariat and the watchdogs get to
>     see the votes.
> The members to the Watchdog Committee in 2001 election are:
>     * Roberto Gaetano
>     * Harald Alvestrand
>     * Kent Crispin
>     * Dany Vandromme
>     * Alexander Svensson
>     * Izumi Aizu
>
> The attached is a schedule and a summary of the ongoing vote.
>
> DNSO Secretariat
>
> [ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
> [ To: [email-masked] ]
>
> [ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-ranking.html ]
>
> ICANN/DNSO
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> DNSO General Assembly
> Vote by the GA to advise the Names Council of its preferences
> for a Chair and an Alternate Chair to the General Assembly
> b04
>
>
>
> 31 March 2001
>
> Vote by the GA to advise the Names Council of its preferences
> for a Chair and an Alternate Chair to the General Assembly
>
> Four candidates determined in Nominations-Acceptances-Endorsements
> process http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html
>
> Listed in order of acceptances:
>     * Danny Younger
>     * Eric Hugh Dierker
>     * Jonathan Weinberg
>     * Patrick Corliss
>
> Basic outline of Vote by the GA to advise the Names Council
> of its preferences for a Chair and an Alternate Chair to the
> General Assembly
>
>     * Basic outline
>       http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-b04-outline.html
>
> Electorate and Voting Registry
>
>     * Electorate. Voting roster
>       http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b04rosterindex.html,
>       as of 31 March 2001, at the time the ballot was sent out.
>     * Voting Registry
>       http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html
>
> Election Rules used by the DNSO General Assembly
>
>     * Election rules
>
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html
>
> Time for the vote
>
>     * Begins: Saturday 31 March 2001, 16:00 UTC, 18:00 CET (Paris),
>       (8:00 LA, 11:00 New York, 18:00 Paris, 01:00 next day Tokyo)
>     * Ends: Saturday 7 April 2001, 16:00 UTC, 18:00 CET (Paris)
>       (9:00 LA, 12:00 New York, 18:00 Paris, 01:00 next day Tokyo)
>
> Results -- to be published on 8 April 2001, 22:00 UTC, 24:00 Paris.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>       Information from:© DNSO GA's Chair
>
> --
> 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, 03 Apr 2001 03:47:27 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Education & Outreach

I read much of what the Berkman Center's has published as far as
education goes.  Most of it is extremely dry but very well written.  If
you already know what is going on Bret's sight is great. ICANNWATCH has
some nice educational stuff in it, but it is very political.  The great
sight that members of this group has put together is really good, but
not one for someone who does not already have a small clue as to what is
going on.

    I think our only option here is a
Multi-phased/Multi-media/Multi-million dollar gross advertising campaign
and developing of Schools and educational centers and Web Sites
throughout the world.

    My real point is that since so many people involved here are so busy
and well rounded, they do not feel compassionate that everyone needs to
know about our ICANN and the world which it effects.  I do not think it
is a lack of importance of the mission but we have no Outreach zealots.
We have to come up with a solution which creates an urgency and a
funding.

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: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 03:52:05 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Sorry wrong address, Education & Outreach

My last post was meant for the WG-Review and not this list.  I am sorry
and ask it's withdrawal - or whatever you do with such a blunder.

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: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:07:31 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

One consequence is stated below. Since NSI has agreed to divest themselves
of the ORG and NET registries, that means that someone has to run them. Does
ICANN take that over directly? Do they contract it out to NSI? Do they sell
the franchise to someone else? Does someone have to buy them from NSI (if
so, how much)?

It gets better ... Since the registry contract comes directly from the DOC,
can ICANN even have direct say? Will DOC award the contracts to ICANN, so
they can sub it back out to NSI?

We haven't even broached those issues, in the last 48 hours. Who said
24-hours, over a weekend, was sufficient to analyze the new contract? Not
D'Crock, certainly.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 12:58 AM
> To: 'Steve Sobol'; Patrick Greenwell
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Verisign Agreement Adopted (fwd)
> 
> 
> > From: Steve Sobol [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 12:12 AM
> > 
> > Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >  
> > > For those of you not following this, the following decision means
> > > effectively NSI has been regranted a registry monopoly over 
> > .com (they
> > > spin out .net and .org) and they do not have to split the registry
> > > operation from the registrar operation.
> > 
> > ?!
> > 
> > uhhh, so what happens to all the alternative dotcom registrars?
> > 
> > I mean, is ICANN asking to be hauled into court or what?
> 
> Nothing of the sort. It simply means that the NSI registrar 
> can continue as-is. The prior agreement would have forced NSI 
> to divest of either the registrar or the registry. Now, they 
> get to keep both but have to divest themselves of ORG and NET 
> registries. BTW, their are legitimate COM/NET/ORG registrars. 
> They are legitimate re-sellers. If you are speaking towards 
> the independent inclusive TLD registries, that remains status 
> quo, as well.
> 
> What this will mean is that someone has to deploy ORG and NET 
> registries. How much you wanna bet that ICANN contracts NSI to do so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
- --
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 20:45:31 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 12:01:37 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 11:20 AM 4/2/2001, DPF wrote:

>>I was not referring to just people on mailing lists.  I agree it is
>>unrepresentative.  I also refer to the almost entirely negative
>>coverage in the media, the critical comments from Congress and also
>>the first hand comments from people who have gone to ICANN meetings
>>with absolutely no vested interests and come back shocked.
>
>OK.  Let's consider your list:
>
>With few exceptions, media reporting simply looks for controversy.  So what 
>they report is essentially the same as what takes place in these public 
>exchanges.  The media makes no effort to probe deeper, such as to explain 
>whether a given position is reasonable or whether a given speaker has any 
>meaningful support.

This is certainly true for some media.  But I believe the degree and
intensity of coverage is well beyond what one would expect for a body
such as ICANN.  

>Critical comments did not come from "Congress".  They came from a few 
>elected officials in Congress.  

Those officials were generally the Chairs and ranking opposition
members of the committees that deal with issues pertaining to ICANN so
it is not just a couple of rogue members of Congress but the senior
members in the telecommunications area.

>The best example of their careful, informed 
>commentary came when one of them criticized Vint Cerf and ICANN saying that 
>by not creating .kids ICANN was "inviting" the US Congress to pursue the 
>matter of pornography.  The august representative was unaware of just how 
>irrelevant .kids (and .xxx) are to matters of content regulation.

Oh just like in NZ I have no doubt that you have your fair share of
thick representatives.  We had one who basically tried to ban the
Internet.  However we should not assume all representatives are
uninformed on such issues and that their comments can be ignored.
Let's remember that it was politicians who effectively stopped the
IAHC and led to ICANN being set up.

>Elected officials do quite a lot of posturing for their constituency.  It's 
>difficult to take a few of their indignant outcries as anything serious, 
>both given how superficial their knowledge is and how little they do with 
>their supposed concern.

Some is posturing but if one really wants to ignore the increasing
frequency of negative comments from senior representatives it is at
your own peril.  

>And then we have your citing the tiny number of people who go to ICANN 
>meetings "with absolutely no vested interests".  It might be interesting to 
>discover who these people are, since there are so few people at the 
>meetings, and therefore almost no one likely to be there with no vested 
>interest.

A large contingent of NZers went to the Melbourne meeting as it was so
close by.  All are involved with ISOCNZ and hence have a potential
vested interest with regard to cctld issues but as ICANN needs the
cctlds far more than they need ICANN there is no real vested interest.
They all posted lengthy reports (4+ pages) of their experiences and
none of them were flattering towards ICANN.  Again you can close your
eyes and pretend they also do not count but I think we should be
concerned that people are coming away with such negative perceptions.
I want to do my part to make things better, not just pretend everyone
complaining is a lazy journalist, an ignorant politician or an
unrepresentative vested interest.

>However, let's consider these hypothetically ideal observers that you 
>cite.  What is their experience with public decision processes?  What is 
>their understanding of serious operations administration for critical 
>infrastructure services?  How much experience do they have balancing ideals 
>with practical constraints?

Well this is going beyond just the NZers who went as acquaintances in
Aussie have also told me about the meeting.  They included two senior
lawyers (both partners), an owner of an ISP, an e-commerce specialist,
a professor, a senior engineer.  The NZers generally also have
experience in ISOCNZ which has had many of the political debates that
ICANN has had but at a local level such as shared registration
systems, monopoly practices, heated debates, registry technical
problems etc.

>>I have a lot of respect for those who have put hard work into making
>>ICANN work but I get frustrated at what appears to be a blinkered view
>>that all criticism is wrong and ICANN could not be performing a lot
>>better.
>
>It is facinating you would make such a statement, since there is no one who 
>has ever expressed such blinkered view.

No ever says it explicitly but when over a period of several months
the vast majority of posts from certain individuals are attacking
those who are criticising ICANN, then they get seen mainly as
apologists.  

I was on the Council of ISOCNZ during a period when it was very
unpopular.  I found that acknowledging the areas where performance has
been less than adequate does a lot for one's credibility.  Debating
the issues people raise rather than attacking them for raising it does
likewise.

>The real difficulty is that hyperbole, personal posturing, personal 
>attacks, and focus on irrelevant or incorrect details has made it 
>impossible to conduct serious, public discussion about serious, practical 
>improvements.

I disagree.  There are some who certainly are distractions but I find
a killfile does a lot to keep it manageable.  I think some of the
analysis and discussion in wg-review was excellent.  It then lost it's
way a bit but that was partially due to the fact the terms of
reference kept changing.

>>Ironically I still think overall ICANN Board has made more right than
>>wrong decisions but it is not enough to merely be "okay" when with
>>some common sense one could be "good".
>
>Given the highly distorted history of mis-steps that ICANN inherited from 
>the US government, and the thoroughly politicized pressure-cooker that 
>ICANN lives in now, you should be astonished, impressed and delighted that 
>it has forged anything even close to "okay".

We will have to agree to disagree.  Nine months ago I was agreeing
with you but I have seen enough now to know that one could improve
things with some simple steps.  Of course there will always be
pressure but let's not pretend ICANN is somehow unique as a non profit
in this respect.

>> >Professionals make contractual decisions in minutes, not months.
>>
>>If it was merely contractual matters at issue one could agree.  But
>>the issues of the proposed agreements and changes go beyond that.
>
>No.  What is at issue is a contract.  Contracts pertain to substantive 
>matters, and substantive matters, well... matter.  But what is at issue is 
>a contract.

But ICANN is not a for profit corporation where the aim is to act in
the best interests of the corporation.  ICANN is meant to act in the
best interest of the internet community and this involves meaningful
consultation with it.  Last minute changes with no input do not
further these aims.

>> >Since you are so concerned about process, I am sure that you will
>> >appreciate the need for carefully attending to what people really say.
>>
>>I made my comments based on the totality of your comments in the last
>>few months.
>
>Since you attribute to me a position I do not hold and have not expressed, 
>it is pretty clear that your assessment is based on something else.

I judge off what I have seen here.  I will be pleasantly surprised
when I see evidence to the contrary,  I would love to see from you an
analysis of where ICANN could do better.  We are on the same side even
if we disagree over some issues.

>> >This takes us directly back to the core fact that Verisign is running a
>> >business and has no philosophical interest, and even less business
>> >incentive, in the casual process that you want.
>>
>>Verisign however it seems were never even asked as part of the
>>negotiations for an extension.
>
>1.  How do you know that?

Because the negotiators made it very clear they would not do so.
Their position was the same as Verisigns.

>2.  You are wrong.  The question was put to them, explicitly, during public 
>exchanges in Melbourne and they declined.

Oh please.  I mean a serious request as part of the negotiations from
those who did the negotiations.  Of course they are not going to agree
willy nilly when asked at a public forum.  

>> >What is Verisign's incentive for agreeing to a delay?
>>
>>Huge huge incentive.  If they are told not agreeing will increase the
>>chance of the status quo remaining.
>
>That would require that Verisign be desparate to change the status 
>quo.  Not just interested or willing, but absolutely desparate.  What is 
>your basis for believing that retaining the current contract is such a 
>horrible outcome to Verisign?

I believe they have been desperate to change the status quo.  The
value of being granted *.com presumptively for eternity and keeping
the registrar business is worth not hundreds of millions but quite
possibly over a billion dollars in the next few years.  

>> >For all of the claim that people want to do careful analysis, they have not
>> >been doing it.
>>
>>The 19 NC members certainly have done so.
>
>Actually, no they have not.  The NC had a lengthy, open session in 
>Melbourne, during which they discussed Alternative B.  They spent the 
>entire time complaining that they did not have enough time to consider the 
>matter -- the document had, by then, been out for 2 weeks -- and they spent 
>no time at all considering the content.

I have read the NC mailing list archives since then and it is obvious
that the NC members have carefully analysed the proposals, discussed
them with their constituencies and come back with position papers.  I
never said they did it at the Melbourne meeting.

>>It would have been proper
>>IMO to give the NC a chance to comment on whether the last minute
>>changes are in accordance with what they wanted.
>
>You appear to believe that the DNSO is supposed to participate in contract 
>negotiations.
>
>They are not.

I believe they contained important policy issues which were the
province of the DNSO.  You of course disagree with me but that is
life.

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

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

Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 05:29:17 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> One consequence is stated below. Since NSI has agreed to divest themselves
> of the ORG and NET registries, that means that someone has to run them. Does
> ICANN take that over directly? Do they contract it out to NSI? Do they sell
> the franchise to someone else? Does someone have to buy them from NSI (if
> so, how much)?
>
> It gets better ... Since the registry contract comes directly from the DOC,
> can ICANN even have direct say? Will DOC award the contracts to ICANN, so
> they can sub it back out to NSI?
>
> We haven't even broached those issues, in the last 48 hours. Who said
> 24-hours, over a weekend, was sufficient to analyze the new contract? Not
> D'Crock, certainly.

Don't you dare stop there, what about conflict of interest issues, full APA
disclosure.  Our staff has run amok.
Let us just presume that maybe just five thousand of us cared about what
transpired today. (my random count of site clickers that dealt with this issue
was closer to 300 thousand - of course that was including
[email-masked].  What could Vint Cerf possibly have to do that is more
important than conducting a full meeting rather than hurrying the meeting
along.  I think that every member should be really insulted at the hurry of the
meeting as though we are a sideline that interrupted Mr. Cerf's busy day. ( of
course I have been taught that our feeling about how we are treated and or
disrespected is irrelevant)  If we elected this guy he would be fired. Mr. Cerf
you owe us an explanation and apology, unless of course, our opinions do not
matter.

Or as Masseurs Crispin and Crocker maintain we are irrelevant and the board has
no one to be responsible to, -  well then I apologize. But I think he has to be
responsible to me and you.

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: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:54:15 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [Nc-tlds] Scrap ICANN ??

On Wednesday, July 26, 2000 3:06 AM (my local time), Dave Crocker wrote:
Subject: RE: [Nc-tlds] Scrap ICANN ??

> ICANN's scope is administration of IP addresses, domain names, and some 
> protocol parameters.
> 
> And that is all ICANN is doing, in spite of the efforts by some to claim 
> otherwise.
> 
> d/

Nothing to it really --  I don't know what all the fuss is about !!!

Regards
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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:18:32 -0400 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Roland,

If you have not already done so, take a look at Section 5.1 in the .org
agreement and Sections 5.1 and 5.2 in the .net agreement.  Terms spelled out
there answer some of your questions regarding the transition of the .org and
.net registries.

Also, the registry agreements (new and old) do not come directly from DoC.
They are between VeriSign and ICANN with terms that tie in the cooperative
agreement VeriSign has with DoC.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 4:08 AM
To: ga dnso
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

One consequence is stated below. Since NSI has agreed to divest themselves
of the ORG and NET registries, that means that someone has to run them. Does
ICANN take that over directly? Do they contract it out to NSI? Do they sell
the franchise to someone else? Does someone have to buy them from NSI (if
so, how much)?

It gets better ... Since the registry contract comes directly from the DOC,
can ICANN even have direct say? Will DOC award the contracts to ICANN, so
they can sub it back out to NSI?

We haven't even broached those issues, in the last 48 hours. Who said
24-hours, over a weekend, was sufficient to analyze the new contract? Not
D'Crock, certainly.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 12:58 AM
> To: 'Steve Sobol'; Patrick Greenwell
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Verisign Agreement Adopted (fwd)
> 
> 
> > From: Steve Sobol [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 12:12 AM
> > 
> > Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >  
> > > For those of you not following this, the following decision means
> > > effectively NSI has been regranted a registry monopoly over 
> > .com (they
> > > spin out .net and .org) and they do not have to split the registry
> > > operation from the registrar operation.
> > 
> > ?!
> > 
> > uhhh, so what happens to all the alternative dotcom registrars?
> > 
> > I mean, is ICANN asking to be hauled into court or what?
> 
> Nothing of the sort. It simply means that the NSI registrar 
> can continue as-is. The prior agreement would have forced NSI 
> to divest of either the registrar or the registry. Now, they 
> get to keep both but have to divest themselves of ORG and NET 
> registries. BTW, their are legitimate COM/NET/ORG registrars. 
> They are legitimate re-sellers. If you are speaking towards 
> the independent inclusive TLD registries, that remains status 
> quo, as well.
> 
> What this will mean is that someone has to deploy ORG and NET 
> registries. How much you wanna bet that ICANN contracts NSI to do so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
- --
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, 03 Apr 2001 09:54:16 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] legal document historical facts

After years of experience with USG contracts, (one of my companies sold
computers and software to the Dept. of Energy)  they look at the lowest,
"best" bid.  In this case ICANN bid $0.00 and other good "consideration".
Item (7) was some of the other "consideration".  Most contracts are written
as $10.00 and other good "consideration".

As a non-profit corp., ICANN must receive 51%+  in "public" donations to
maintain its 501(c)(3) status. That is why the new ICANN contract has some
donations.

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
To: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 11:23 PM
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

- --
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 17:32:13 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Vote by the GA - preferences for a Chair and an Alternate Chair

Erica,

>
>It appears that the list of GA voters does not include all members of the 
>GA
>list.  I'd be interested to know how the list of voters is constructed and
>why members of the list are not automatically included on the list of
>voters.
>

The reason why we require separate registration in the voting Registry is 
because, according to our rules, we perform specific checking on the 
registrants to avoid double registrations for the same person and other 
problems.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

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

Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 08:34:36 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

At 01:45 AM 4/3/2001, DPF wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 12:01:37 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>The media makes no effort to probe deeper, such as to explain
> >whether a given position is reasonable or whether a given speaker has any
> >meaningful support.
>
>This is certainly true for some media.  But I believe the degree and
>intensity of coverage is well beyond what one would expect for a body
>such as ICANN.

I suggest you learn more about current trends and problems in reporting.

Columbia Journalism Review is the US "dean" of such oversight, but there 
are other sources.

> >Critical comments did not come from "Congress".  They came from a few
> >elected officials in Congress.
>
>Those officials were generally the Chairs and ranking opposition
>members of the committees that deal with issues pertaining to ICANN so
>it is not just a couple of rogue members of Congress but the senior
>members in the telecommunications area.

That makes their ignorance and silliness all the more offensive, but does 
not make it less ignorant or silly.

And it is interesting that you are willing to accept comments "from 
authority" when it agrees with your criticisms, but not when it doesn't.

> >Elected officials do quite a lot of posturing for their constituency.  It's
> >difficult to take a few of their indignant outcries as anything serious,
> >both given how superficial their knowledge is and how little they do with
> >their supposed concern.
>
>Some is posturing but if one really wants to ignore the increasing
>frequency of negative comments from senior representatives it is at
>your own peril.

Increasing frequency?  Not really.  They have been showing periodic 
involvement.

If you mean that there were 2 hearings this time and only 1 before, yeah, I 
suppose that shows greater interest.  That's to be expected as losers of 
the supposed domain name lottery seek every avenue for disrupting things 
further.

> >And then we have your citing the tiny number of people who go to ICANN
> >meetings "with absolutely no vested interests".  It might be interesting to
> >discover who these people are, since there are so few people at the
> >meetings, and therefore almost no one likely to be there with no vested
> >interest.
>
>A large contingent of NZers went to the Melbourne meeting as it was so
>close by.  All are involved with ISOCNZ and hence have a potential
>vested interest with regard to cctld issues but as ICANN needs the
>cctlds far more than they need ICANN there is no real vested interest.

Huh?  The cctld constituency is very highly vested.

For nearly two years they have rather firmly and very explicitly sought to 
delay the introduction of new TLDs.  (I got kicked out of a RIPE ccTLD 
meeting in Scotland for raising the perspective that they were being 
counterproductive.)

>They all posted lengthy reports (4+ pages) of their experiences and
>none of them were flattering towards ICANN.  Again you can close your
>eyes and pretend they also do not count but I think we should be
>concerned that people are coming away with such negative perceptions.

Concerned, of course.

The pervasive lack of maturity among participants in Melbourne was 
striking.  Overall the tone from the floor was the same as watching a 
child's tantrum.  No sense of the practical constraints on processes such 
as ICANN, and no sense of shared responsibility for making things 
works.  Just constant, childish outbursts.

Very concerned, indeed.

> >>...I get frustrated at what appears to be a blinkered view
> >>that all criticism is wrong...
> >
> >It is facinating you would make such a statement, since there is no one who
> >has ever expressed such blinkered view.
>
>No ever says it explicitly but when over a period of several months
>the vast majority of posts from certain individuals are attacking
>those who are criticising ICANN, then they get seen mainly as apologists.

It is difficult to do much about a failure to look at the merits of 
postings carefully.

However one small effort:  as you look at the pattern of postings that you 
assess to be "apologist" you might equally look at the pattern of postings 
they respond to.

First ask whether the poster has been showing a pattern of sniping at ICANN.

Then consider carefully the practical aspects of their criticisms.  Not 
just whether there is some surface credibility to the criticism, but 
whether it reflects core, practical concerns, balanced against core, 
practical constraints.

In other words, do they reflect a balanced effort to negotiate through 
difficult, practical waters or are they just idealistic, rigid and/or 
self-centered demands from a single perspective?

Does the speaker seem to be more interested in their own public platform 
than in ICANN succeeding?

And so on...

>I was on the Council of ISOCNZ during a period when it was very
>unpopular.  I found that acknowledging the areas where performance has
>been less than adequate does a lot for one's credibility.

In a serious dialogue, with serious participants, you are entirely 
correct.  We are not in such a situation.  The public dialogue has been 
taken over by a a combination of interest groups that have created a 
dynamic which entirely stifles serious discussion.

That is the message in 
<http://brandenburg.com/presentations/Level-10-routing/sld009.htm>.  Only 
the group at the bottom of the list under Opposition is interested in 
serious discussion and they are drowned out by the mass of others higher on 
the list.

>Debating the issues people raise rather than attacking them for raising it 
>does likewise.

Tried it.  At length.

Doesn't work.  Sorry.

> >The real difficulty is that hyperbole, personal posturing, personal
> >attacks, and focus on irrelevant or incorrect details has made it
> >impossible to conduct serious, public discussion about serious, practical
> >improvements.
>
>I disagree.  There are some who certainly are distractions but I find
>a killfile does a lot to keep it manageable.

Killfiles are useful in dealing with crazies, but not with those who are 
more intelligent and more insidious in their agendas.

>I think some of the
>analysis and discussion in wg-review was excellent.  It then lost it's
>way a bit but that was partially due to the fact the terms of
>reference kept changing.

As my cited slide shows, yes there are some serious participants 
around.  They have no useful effect because the forces surrounding their 
comments combine to drown them out.

One item I left off the list is the difficulty of managing open group 
processes.  It often requires some special skills and they are rare.

>...I have seen enough now to know that one could improve
>things with some simple steps.

"For every complex problem, there is a simple solution.  And it is 
wrong."  H.L. Mencken

> >No.  What is at issue is a contract.  Contracts pertain to substantive
> >matters, and substantive matters, well... matter.  But what is at issue is
> >a contract.
>
>But ICANN is not a for profit corporation where the aim is to act in
>the best interests of the corporation.  ICANN is meant to act in the
>best interest of the internet community and this involves meaningful
>consultation with it.  Last minute changes with no input do not
>further these aims.

Well, this is a good example of the problem with a narrow focus in looking 
at practical matters.  In particular it reflects a failure to consider that 
Verisign IS a business and they are running a critical infrastructure 
service, and they have no incentive to let the matter linger on 
endlessly.  They already had a contract, remember.

"The best interests of the Internet" are served better by improvements in 
contracts with operators than by catering to a tiny group of constantly 
plaintive observers.  If the quality of participation by the observers had 
a more useful history, comments about process might have some legitimacy, 
but so far this group has largely squandered its platform.

>I judge off what I have seen here.  I will be pleasantly surprised
>when I see evidence to the contrary,  I would love to see from you an
>analysis of where ICANN could do better.

Interesting that you do no seem inclined to DISMISS those who show a 
constant pattern of only criticizing, demanding from them that they provide 
some analysis of where ICANN has done well...

> >>Verisign however it seems were never even asked as part of the
> >>negotiations for an extension.
> >
> >1.  How do you know that?
>
>Because the negotiators made it very clear they would not do so.
>Their position was the same as Verisigns.

You have no basis for such a claim, since you were not in the discussions 
and they have made no public statements supporting your assertions.

> >2.  You are wrong.  The question was put to them, explicitly, during public
> >exchanges in Melbourne and they declined.
>
>Oh please.  I mean a serious request as part of the negotiations from
>those who did the negotiations.

You do not know what was said, requested or demanded.  The fact that you 
are so firm in making assertion for which you have no objective basis 
demonstrates undermines your claim about careful and serious discussion.

> >That would require that Verisign be desparate to change the status
> >quo.  Not just interested or willing, but absolutely desparate.  What is
> >your basis for believing that retaining the current contract is such a
> >horrible outcome to Verisign?
>
>I believe they have been desperate to change the status quo.  The
>value of being granted *.com presumptively for eternity

As a practical matter, they have had that grant for some years.  The real 
effect of the contract revision was to reduce their "hassle factor" from 
challenges for awhile.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #339
************************