Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #361
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, April 8 2001            Volume 01 : Number 361

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

Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:46:05 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Constituency Structure - Supply and Demand

All

I refer to debate on other lists (see below) and raise it with the DNSO GA.

If you have a look at http://www.dnso.org/ you will see there are seven
"Constituency Groups" in ICANN's DNSO.   The purpose of these groups is to
provide input into ICANN's policy process.  The existing groups are:

* ccTLD registries
* Commercial and business entities
* gTLD registries
* ISPs and connectivity providers
* Non-commercial domain name holders
* Registrars
* Trademark, intellectual property, anti-counterfeiting interests

Within this framework, there is a classification problem.  A Registry is a
business, so is a Registrar.  In Australia, Connect.com is both a Registry and a
Registrar for .net.au.  The new gTLDs have a similar combined model.

After the Registrar, the next step in the supply-demand chain is the
Registration Service Provider or RSP.  If you look at Tucows-OpenSRS, they have
5,000 such "resellers".  These are not currently included in the "Registrars"
constituency.  Finally, there is the "registrant" giving:

(1)    Registry                                   (Verisign Registry)
(2)    Registry-Registrar                  (new gTLDs, ccTLDs)
(3)    Registrar                                  (ICANN-accredited registrars)
(4)    Registration Service Providers     (like OpenSRS resellers)
(5)    Registrant                                (may be further sub-divided).

In Australia we separate the chain into "supply" and "demand" of domain names.
There is also a third category for internet organisations such as ISOC.
Structurally this is quite sound although the third category is perhaps less
well-defined that the first two.

Of course, the "registrant" community can also be divided into (a) business (b)
hobbyist (c) personal (d) non-user (i.e. speculator etc.) etc.

Each category has to be identifiable and coherent with respect to the other
categories.  Registrants, for example, are easily identified as a constituency
from the whois record.  Within that you can have different legal entities.

On the "demand" side most "punters" can be divided into groups such as:

* individuals (.id or .per)
* sole traders and partnerships
* large & small businesses (dotcom)
* networks and service providers (ISPs, ASPs) (.net)
* government authorities (.gov)
* military establishments (.mil)
* associations (trade, cultural, etc) (.asn.au in Australia)
* churches and religions
* charities, NGOs (.org ?)
* educational institutions (dot edu)
* conferences (.conf.au in Australia)
* information resources (.info or .info.au in Australia)
* co-operatives (.coop)
* miscellaneous/other organisations

However, I can also see a need for other "demand" groups like the following:

* mobile phones
* vending machines
* radio & tv stations
* phone boxes
* residences (houses, units, etc.)
* vessels (ships, boats & ferries)
* unincorporated associations
* aircraft
* cars, trucks & taxis
* robots
* industrial processes
* trains
* railway stations

Some of these will possibly be pushing the case for new TLDs in the ICANN root
and this would promote diversity.   This demand has prompted the growth of
alternative TLDs which, together with their registrants, are outside ICANN.

However, there is clearly an inherent division between "supply" and "demand".
The idea of "virtual constituencies" also makes sense given the complexities
involved.  I consider the DNSO GA should review its structure in this area.

This analysis identifies one area of difficulty, the ccTLDs.  These are clearly
on the "supply" side of the equation but at a different level.  This is perhaps
demonstrated by the absence of the ccTLD Registrars from the "registrars"
constituency.  Of course, they may or may not have a voice within the ccTLD.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Langdell, PhD <[email-masked]>
To: Milton Mueller <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 3:36 AM
Subject: Re: [council] gTLD CONSTITUENCY

> I do not know the white paper which is being referred to in this thread (can
> someone give me a link to it please?). But in principal I presume it is
> possible for an organization to argue that it will limit membership of a
> gTLD constituency to only those who either have an ICANN approved TLD or who
> applied for one formally. That said, I think it is clear that such a body
> would represent only a section of the gTLD community, and as time goes by a
> smaller and smaller part of it. Since New.net launched, and respecting that
> there have been alternate TLDs in the market for years (alt root servers
> etc), to fail to include those people in such a constituency would make the
> body far from representative of gTLD rights holders or interested parties
> worldwide.
>
> Tim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 7:55 PM
> Subject: RE: [council] gTLD CONSTITUENCY
>
>
> > Roger raised some valid points in his message below. A new registry
> constituency must have clear membership criteria. However, it is unfair to
> restrict membership in the gTLD constituency to those who are already
> licensed, as they would have strong incentives to limit competitive entry.
> >
> > Fortunately, there is a simple way around this problem.
> >
> > The new registry constituency can consist of any organization that has
> officially applied to ICANN to become a registry.
> >
> > At this point in time, that means all those organizations that paid
> ICANN's $50,000 non-refundable application fee.
> >
> > This is a simple, clear criterion. No one can contend that those who
> applied are not seriously committed to ICANN and to the registry business.
> >
> > --MM
> >
> > >>> "Cochetti, Roger" <[email-masked]> 03/26/01 07:53 AM >>>
> >
> > 1) While there are quite a few proposals floating around for "registry
> industry trade associations" that would include any business that considers
> itself a registry, this Constituency is an ICANN DNSO constituency, whose
> principal purpose is to provide input into the ICANN DNSO process.  So,
> while the registry industry may well need and get a broad trade association,
> we did not feel that the " DNSO Constituency " was the venue for it; and
> > 2) In order to provide some meaningful boundary for the DNSO Constituency,
> accreditation is a fairly clear demarcation;  beyond that, things get murky
> and fairly debatable; and
> > 3) Whereas the commitment that an organization makes to express interest
> in becoming a gTLD registry is limited,  the commitment rises considerably
> > after accreditation, ensuring the full commitment of the Constituency to
> the DNSO's work.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as:
> [email-masked]
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> [email-masked]
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: [email-masked]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]
>

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

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

Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 02:20:52 -0700
From: "Jeff Field" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Education and Outreach, An edu.out.list

Yah...great idea...but only if we could all agree on what the history has
been.  Won't be an easy task given the extreme views and emotions that have
been a regular feature of all the domain name related lists to which I've
subscribed to over the years (since 1995).  A glossary of acronyms, however,
might actually be useful.  Those are not so easily twisted.  :-)

Regards,

Jeff
- --
Jeff Field
925-283-4083
[email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Eric
> Dierker
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 8:51 PM
> To: Roeland Meyer
> Cc: 'Sandy Harris'; [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Re: Education and Outreach, An edu.out.list
>
>
> Alright here we have it, the last straw. We must establish a list
> which you
> persons of prominance and ICANN history will mentor.  Where someone, even
> people of history can pose a question and get an answer.  there are enough
> archives where simply referring to them will help.  We must establish
> guidelines but I believe in such a setting the good will rise to the top.
>
> think of the beauty and the ease; I post what do all these
> initials stand for
> and Eric replies here is the link you moron, no leave out the moron part!!
> Who is this Postal guy and and what is an RFC?  and Danny replies
> with a simple
> explanation and some locators. (of course Danny is a newbie too
> so we may some
> problem ;>) Maybe we could help make a system to avoid these two
> pifalls of my
> imaginary examples.
>
> We set up a system for categorizing the the reply headers for
> ease of research
>
> And we begin to build a place where we transfer the knowledge of
> you fine folks
> to us next gen newbies.
>
> (The examples were meant to be fun and lighthearted and this
> poster takes no
> responsibility for any offense taken thereby, although I know
> Danny will take
> none)
>
> Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
> > > From: Sandy Harris [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 1:12 PM
> >
> > > ICANN could create a .mark TLD with a trademarks-only
> > > charter. Let WIPO
> > > administer it or choose and instruct a contractor to do so.
> > >
> > > WIPO could create .mark.wipo.org, or anyone could register
> > > marks.net or
> > > some such name. Once they've done that, they can assign subdomains as
> > > they please.
> >
> > We've already covered this possibility in WG-B. See the
> archives for why it
> > won't work.
> > --
> > 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: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 11:54:55 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

Danny Younger wrote:

>
>It seems to me that there are now at least 25 recognized generic TLD
>operators or applicants. 7 of them were authorized to get new contracts 
>back
>in November. Of the remaining dozen or so, ICANN Staff has repeatedly said
>that their applications are not rejected but are basically "on hold"
>awaiting the results of the so-called "proof of concept."
>
>Why are these organizations not included in the gTLD constituency?
>
>Are these registries and registry applicants not deserving of 
>representation
>in the DNSO? This is particularly difficult to understand for the 7 new
>registries. Why has the DNSO not quickly taken measures to create a REAL
>gTLD constituency?

IMHO, the real question is to speed up to get the 7 new Registries up and 
running!
Anyway, the point you raise is about the other applicants, that may be 
waiting for quite some time (at least one year, I think) for ICANN to 
approve new TLDs.
In the old times of creation of DNSO, this problem had been adressed, but 
not solved. There were proposals for either create a "to-be-TLD" 
Constituency, or include them in the Registry constituency.
The objection was: "How to define a to-be-TLD?" Everybody could lay down 
such a claim. Of course, now with the process in place, application to ICANN 
could be a criterion.

>Milton has raised a very good question.  Patrick Corliss has also noted, 
>"In
>Australia, Connect.com is both a Registry and a Registrar for .net.au."
>Others assuredly will bring forward additional examples of other gTLD
>registries.

I am not sure I understand this one, though.
TLD means Top Level Domain, and to the best of my understanding .net.au and 
similar entities, although Registries, are SLDs (Second Level Domains).
The difference is not trivial, as I assume that .net.au would operate with a 
contract with .au, and not with a direct relationship with ICANN like the 
TLDs.

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: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:17:16 +0200
From: "Siegfried Langenbach" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Board decisions (2)

Mr Chairman, members of the ICANN board, members of NC, 
members of constituencies and GA

A) CHANGE OF BYLAWS

 it was hard to imagine, but it happened : the board of ICANN used
 the power they have (according the bylaws) and voted against the
 recommendations of the DNSO constituencies and community.
 In my view these is a fundamental breach of the spirit and intention
 of ICANN and the involved parties.

 Doing so, they showed that they consider themself "selected" 
 (not elected !), but not responsible to those who made the choice.
 ICANN bylaws says:
snip----------
 Article V, Section 8. DUTIES OF DIRECTORS
    Directors shall serve as individuals who have the duty to act in 
what they reasonably believe are the best interests of the
    Corporation and not as representatives of the subordinate entity 
that selected them, their employers, or any other organizations or
    constituencies. 
snap---------------

 Making representatives ( elected boards ) responsible to those who
 elected them is a fundamental issue IMO ( otherwise they are not
 representatives in the words meaning ). 

 I can not see any sense in participating in a body 
 ( constituency ) which is ignored by the board; even worse: is just
 used from time to time for "selections", intending to show an
 democratic structure which in reality is not present. I can not see
 that ICANN itself can claim to be acting for the internet community
 if the bylaws remain unchanged in section 8.

B) RESPONSIBILITIES 

 In addition I fail to see that the BoD followed Article VI, Section 2
 RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS
 in which the process of taking decisions is described.
snip--------------------------
(f) If the Board declines to accept any recommendation of a 
Supporting Organization, it shall return the recommendation to the
    Supporting Organization for further consideration, along with a 
statement of the reasons it declines to accept the
    recommendation. If, after reasonable efforts, the Board does not 
receive a recommendation from the Supporting Organization
    that it finds meets the standards of Section 2(e) of this Article VI 
or, after attempting to mediate any disputes or disagreements
    between Supporting Organizations, receives conflicting 
recommendations from Supporting Organizations, and the Board 
finds
    there is a justification for prompt action, the Board may initiate, 
amend or modify and then approve a specific policy
    recommendation.
snap-------------------------

 Lets have a quick look to the members of BoD:

Selected by DOC:
Frank Fitzsimmons
Hans Kraaijenbrink
Jun Murai
Linda S. Wilson

 not clear to whom they should be responsible
 - Jon Postel ?
 - DOC ?
 - company who pays the salary ?
 These persons hardly can be asked to justify their decisions,
 which obviously is a problem.
 
Elected from PSO:
Vinton G. Cerf
Phil Davidson
Helmut Schink
 From my view primarily responsible to PSO, but also to the other
 SO, as the decision was affecting DNSO more than others, I
 would have expected a bit more conformity with spirit and VI,2,f
 A special case is Helmut, who left the timely short conference
 before voting, because of more importand things I heard,
 interesting... ( personal note from a german to a german)

Elected from ASO:
Robert Blokzijl
Ken Fockler
Sang-Hyon Kyong
same as for PSO if you change PSO with ASO. At least one (Ken) 
showed by abstaining that the spirit exists.

Elected from DNSO:
Alejandro Pisanty
Amadeu Abril i Abril
Jonathan Cohen

 Well, as a member of DNSO I tend to be more radical here and
 ask the two ( Alejandro and Jonathan ) who voted against the
 recommendations, to justify their decision or to resign.
 ( I know you dont have to, according the bylaws, but you must
 if you dont want to loose credability :-)

Elected from atLarge:
Karl Auerbach
Ivan Moura Campos
Masanobu Katoh
Andy Mueller-Maguhn
Nii Quaynor

 Here I have again a problem. to whom should they be responsible?
 It seems to me that having elections from time to time is not really
 a "representative democracy", something the LASC will have to
 find a solution. But at least 2 of them ( Andy and Karl ) voted 
 according the GA ( from my point of view something similar to
 @large :-).

 conclusion:
 if we accept the outcome of last weeks and do not learn and
 improve ICANN we better use our time earning money leaving
 ICANN to laywers. That could then be called "lawcracy" or
 "lawcrazy" ?, sorry about my english :-))

siegfried

- --
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, 08 Apr 2001 16:20:27 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

At 15:42 7/04/01 -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:

>Crocker: 
>> > > As has been noted frequently, the UDRP needs enhancement.  But let's
not
>> > > attribute more precedent to it or ICANN than is valid.
>> >
>Me:
>> > Specifically, it needs better protection for the domain holders who are
>> > attacked using it.

The enhancement, in the form of protection for the Domain Name Owner, lies
in the formulation (by ICANN's DNSO?)  of a DN Owners' "Bill of Rights",
that should be part of the preamble of UDRP rules and all registrar
contracts that refer to them.

(I remember raising this point almost 3 years ago)

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

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

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

Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 21:39:11 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

On Sunday, April 08, 2001 7:54 PM (AEST), Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> On Sunday, April 08, 2001 9:12 AM (AEST), Danny Younger wrote:
> > Patrick Corliss has also noted, "In Australia, Connect.com is both a
> > Registry and a Registrar for .net.au."  Others assuredly will bring forward
> > additional examples of other gTLD registries.  As the gTLD Constituency
> > already exists, I would think that now is the time for those with rights to
> > participation to assert those rights.

> I am not sure I understand this one, though.
> TLD means Top Level Domain, and to the best of my understanding .net.au and
> similar entities, although Registries, are SLDs (Second Level Domains).
> The difference is not trivial, as I assume that .net.au would operate with a
> contract with .au, and not with a direct relationship with ICANN like the
> TLDs.

http://www.dnso.org/constituency/registrars/registrars.html states as follows:

The Registrar Constituency

The Registrar Constituency of the DNSO, is currently made up of members who meet
the requirement of being an ICANN accredited Registrar, and having completed a
Membership Form.  Primarily, the Registrar Constituency has been focussing its
efforts on the direct issues facing Registrars in the gTLD's .com .net and .org.

There are many issues that have been tackled, and many yet to be tackled, as the
overall state of the Registry/Registrar relationship and operations are
undergoing a great deal of change.   Thus, this constituency has one of the more
defined membership and courses of action to date, however eventually the
intention is to broaden the focus to include ccTLD Registrars, and perhaps
resellers and those performing services and operations like a  "registrar."
<end quote>

Hi Roberto

As seen above, the ccTLD Registrars are not included in the "registrar"
constituency and neither are Registration Service Providers (RSPs) such as
OpenSRS's 5,000 resellers.  However, the statement on the website suggests that
there is an "intention" to include such participants.

In Australia, AFAIK, Melbourne IT - the registrar for .com.au -- IS an ICANN
accredited registrar whilst Connect.com - the registrar for .net.au - is NOT an
ICANN accredited registrar.

So Melbourne IT is eligible to join the "registrar" constituency and Connect.com
is effectively disenfranchised.  Of course a ccTLD may, or may not, have a
cc-ICANN to play with.

My understanding of Danny's comments was not so much that .net.au was a gTLD
(which as a cc-2LD it clearly isn't) but that a broader range of registrars
should be eligible to join the "registrar" constituency in accordance with the
"intention" specified on the DNSO website.

Whilst it could be argued that ICANN accreditation defines those with an
interest in ICANN processes, the question remains why should other, equally
competent registrars be excluded?

Perhaps it is that ICANN wants to encourage accreditation in order to collect
the accreditation licence fee.  It is also possible that there is hidden agenda
to ensure compliance with the UDRP.

Clearly the scope of the "registrars" constituency needs to be clearly defined.

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: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 09:41:22 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Removal of Directors

Siegfried Langenbach has made a very reasonable comment.  In requesting that
Directors Alejandro Pisanty and Jonathan Cohen justify their decision (to
vote against the consensus position of the DNSO) or to resign, Mr.
Langenbach seeks nothing more than the accountability that is due to an
electorate by its elected officials.  I support this effort.

I would further recommend that we immediately move to formally establish
procedures that will allow the DNSO to call for the removal of its
Directors.  The ByLaws stipulate:  "A Director selected by a Supporting
Organization can be recommended for removal by that Supporting Organization
through procedures adopted by that Supporting Organization and ratified by
the Board. Upon such recommendation for removal, the Board shall vote to
remove such Director."

We are within our rights to establish such procedures.  Let us do so now and
hope that we never have to invoke such procedures.

- --
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, 08 Apr 2001 15:40:05 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

Dear Roberto,
On 11:54 08/04/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
>IMHO, the real question is to speed up to get the 7 new Registries up and 
>running!

I am sorry but you probably want to say 6. ".biz" is up and running with 
customers for a while.
Jefsey

PS. Unless you support the "iCANN take away right" concept that would also 
apply in the ".org" and may be ".net" case. That Tim documented about 
"edu.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: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 11:02:14 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases

At 00:38 08.04.2001 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>And there are reports of cases, where the respondent received the
>complaint so late, that he could not respond in time, despite correct
>whois details, so without any fault on his part. People are also away
>for some days or a week. Bad luck then under the UDRP.

Yes. The timeout is too short, and the procedures for "oops, I should have 
replied" are nonexistent.

I think a revised UDRP should have a longer timeout for initial response, 
and a procedure for re-evaluation of the case within (say) 3 months in the 
case of new evidence (such as the owner coming back from holidays) coming 
to light.

- --
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, 8 Apr 2001 08:25:23 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Board decisions (2)

On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 12:17:16PM +0200, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:
> Mr Chairman, members of the ICANN board, members of NC, 
> members of constituencies and GA
> 
> A) CHANGE OF BYLAWS
> 
>  it was hard to imagine, but it happened : the board of ICANN used
>  the power they have (according the bylaws) and voted against the
>  recommendations of the DNSO constituencies and community.

According to the bylaws, a "recommendation of the DNSO" requires a
majority vote of the elected members of the names council, and a
"consensus" position of the DNSO requires a 2/3 vote of the members of
the NC.  Nine of the 19 members of the NC voted that they "reluctantly"
favored the old contract.  Nine is less than half the membership of the
NC; this is not a majority, therefore it was not a recommendation of the
DNSO. 

This particular formulation was arrived at, you may recall, in the
context of a debate over the issue of a "weak" NC vs a "strong" NC; this
debate actually revolves around the more fundamental issue of the rights
of a minority vs the power of the majority, an issue that is 
encapsulated in the old saying "democracy is two wolves and a sheep 
voting on what to have for dinner".  Without some kind of safeguards 
for the rights of minority positions, a democracy is simply a tyranny 
of the majority.

There are two common approaches to dealing with this issue: 1) the "Bill
of Rights" approach, where certain rights are simply put beyond the
power of the majority to affect; and the "super majority" (or "rough
consensus") approach, where decisions require much more than a simple 
majority.  (These approaches are not mutually exclusive, of course.)

In our context the "minorities" that were concerned about this were the
registries, both the ccTLDs and NSI.  (Nowadays, the registrars are also
included in that class.) [You may recall that the ccTLD registries
developed the notion of the "producer/consumer" split, which was
proposed in the DNSO formation meetings by Dennis Jennings: the
"producers" (registries/registrars) are numerically a tiny minority
relative to the "consumers", their interests are frequently
antagonistic, and the "producers" don't want to turn control of their
enterprises over to their customers.]

In any case, the result in the bylaws was that, by intention, it should
be relatively hard for the NC to make a recommendation. 

[...]
> snip----------
>  Article V, Section 8. DUTIES OF DIRECTORS
>     Directors shall serve as individuals who have the duty to act in 
> what they reasonably believe are the best interests of the
>     Corporation and not as representatives of the subordinate entity 
> that selected them, their employers, or any other organizations or
>     constituencies. 
> snap---------------
> 
>  Making representatives ( elected boards ) responsible to those who
>  elected them is a fundamental issue IMO ( otherwise they are not
>  representatives in the words meaning ). 

In fact, they are not "representatives", and they cannot legally be so. 
That is a crucial difference between a government and a corporation;
ICANN is a corporation, and its directors, by law, have a fiduciary duty
to the corporation and its purposes, and not to the people who
(s)elected them.  This is an absolutely fundamental distinction.

In the case of ICANN, the purposes of the corporation are to support 
the bests of the Internet community as a whole -- not the interest of 
the DNSO.

>  I can not see any sense in participating in a body 
>  ( constituency ) which is ignored by the board; 

I'm sorry to tell you, but there is absolutely no way of avoiding this
- -- unless absolutely everyone agrees (which we know is not the case),
there will always be some group that disagrees with the outcome of a 
decision -- and they will always have the option of saying that they 
were "ignored by the board".

[...]

> B) RESPONSIBILITIES 
> 
>  In addition I fail to see that the BoD followed Article VI, Section 2
>  RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS
>  in which the process of taking decisions is described.
> snip--------------------------
> (f) If the Board declines to accept any recommendation of a 
> Supporting Organization,

As described above, in fact there was no recommendation.

[...]

>  Lets have a quick look to the members of BoD:

You ask how the various board members can justify their action.  In my
opinion it is clear that they voted for the result that they really
think is best for the Internet Community, given the information that was
available:

Looking down the list you provided, it is quite clear that none of the
board members are tied to NSI/VRSN.  Moreover, the history of conflicts
between ICANN and NSI is such that it is very hard to imagine that
either the board or the staff of ICANN have any particular love for NSI. 
Nor can we presume that the board and staff are unknowledgable about the
ways of the world, or that they are ignorant of the business realities
that are fundamental to this issue.  Unlike some of those that strongly
oppose the new agreements, none of the board members have any obvious
vested interest in in the outcome.  There is no evidence at all of any
conspiracy among the board members -- in fact, quite the contrary... 
And your letter is adequate proof that there is no particular political
advantage that the board members gain for this vote. 

Consequently, there is no reasonable explanation for the outcome of the 
vote except that the board really thinks this is the best result.

If you disagree with that assessment, I would be interested to know 
your explanation for the outcome.

- -- 
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: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 08:42:05 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Removal of Directors

How could this post be any better written organized and laid out. Your
conclusion is absolutely correct Mr. Younger. We don't even need to study it,
just do it!

Sincerely,

"babybows.com" wrote:

> Siegfried Langenbach has made a very reasonable comment.  In requesting that
> Directors Alejandro Pisanty and Jonathan Cohen justify their decision (to
> vote against the consensus position of the DNSO) or to resign, Mr.
> Langenbach seeks nothing more than the accountability that is due to an
> electorate by its elected officials.  I support this effort.
>
> I would further recommend that we immediately move to formally establish
> procedures that will allow the DNSO to call for the removal of its
> Directors.  The ByLaws stipulate:  "A Director selected by a Supporting
> Organization can be recommended for removal by that Supporting Organization
> through procedures adopted by that Supporting Organization and ratified by
> the Board. Upon such recommendation for removal, the Board shall vote to
> remove such Director."
>
> We are within our rights to establish such procedures.  Let us do so now and
> hope that we never have to invoke such procedures.
>
> --
> 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, 8 Apr 2001 09:16:04 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Removal of Directors

On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 09:41:22AM -0400, babybows.com wrote:
> Siegfried Langenbach has made a very reasonable comment.  In requesting that
> Directors Alejandro Pisanty and Jonathan Cohen justify their decision (to
> vote against the consensus position of the DNSO)

Correction: contrary to popular belief, there was no consensus position
of the DNSO.  The vote in favor of retaining the current contract was
only 9 out of the 19 directors -- not even a majority, and far less 
than that required for a determination of consensus.

- -- 
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: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:57:17 -0400 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases

Has anyone who said they didn't get notice in time asked for an extension
and been denied?  I don't know the answer to that, by the way.  I don't know
whether there is an existing process for a short extension... does anyone
else?

- -----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 5:02 AM
To: Marc Schneiders
Cc: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA;
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases

At 00:38 08.04.2001 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>And there are reports of cases, where the respondent received the
>complaint so late, that he could not respond in time, despite correct
>whois details, so without any fault on his part. People are also away
>for some days or a week. Bad luck then under the UDRP.

Yes. The timeout is too short, and the procedures for "oops, I should have 
replied" are nonexistent.

I think a revised UDRP should have a longer timeout for initial response, 
and a procedure for re-evaluation of the case within (say) 3 months in the 
case of new evidence (such as the owner coming back from holidays) coming 
to light.

- --
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, 8 Apr 2001 13:09:05 -0400 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] gTLD constituency

Shouldn't the focus be planning to get the approved new gTLDs engaged, once
they are through the contracting/up and running process?    I assume that
they are all aware of the constitency and planning to participate. 

I'm not sure of the role of the GA in this particular situation, though. I
believe that the by-laws of the constituency support the entry of the
approved gTLDs.

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 5:55 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

Danny Younger wrote:

>
>It seems to me that there are now at least 25 recognized generic TLD
>operators or applicants. 7 of them were authorized to get new contracts 
>back
>in November. Of the remaining dozen or so, ICANN Staff has repeatedly said
>that their applications are not rejected but are basically "on hold"
>awaiting the results of the so-called "proof of concept."
>
>Why are these organizations not included in the gTLD constituency?
>
>Are these registries and registry applicants not deserving of 
>representation
>in the DNSO? This is particularly difficult to understand for the 7 new
>registries. Why has the DNSO not quickly taken measures to create a REAL
>gTLD constituency?

IMHO, the real question is to speed up to get the 7 new Registries up and 
running!
Anyway, the point you raise is about the other applicants, that may be 
waiting for quite some time (at least one year, I think) for ICANN to 
approve new TLDs.
In the old times of creation of DNSO, this problem had been adressed, but 
not solved. There were proposals for either create a "to-be-TLD" 
Constituency, or include them in the Registry constituency.
The objection was: "How to define a to-be-TLD?" Everybody could lay down 
such a claim. Of course, now with the process in place, application to ICANN

could be a criterion.

>Milton has raised a very good question.  Patrick Corliss has also noted, 
>"In
>Australia, Connect.com is both a Registry and a Registrar for .net.au."
>Others assuredly will bring forward additional examples of other gTLD
>registries.

I am not sure I understand this one, though.
TLD means Top Level Domain, and to the best of my understanding .net.au and 
similar entities, although Registries, are SLDs (Second Level Domains).
The difference is not trivial, as I assume that .net.au would operate with a

contract with .au, and not with a direct relationship with ICANN like the 
TLDs.

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
- --
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 #361
************************