Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #363
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, April 9 2001            Volume 01 : Number 363

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

Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 22:12:12 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Results of ranking vote for Chair and Alternate Chair to the GA

Congrats to the new chair and alternate chair.

Let the (serious) work begin anew!

And, of course the NC will validate this.
Peter de Blanc
ccTLD NC rep

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of William
X. Walsh
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 4:30 PM
To: sotiris
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Results of ranking vote for Chair and Alternate
Chair to the GA

Hello sotiris,

Sunday, April 08, 2001, 12:47:40 PM, sotiris wrote:

> The GA now has it's 2001 Chair and co-Chair.

No, the GA has made its recommendation to the NC.  At this point, we
still have to wait on them.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

- --
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 18:38:19 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases

At 04:57 PM 4/8/2001, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >Having heard one or another report that someone, somewhere has some sort of
> >problem does not warrant making a change to ensure that that particular
> >thing never happens again.
> >
>I hope this remark is a not a reflection of an unwillingness to improve the
>administration of justice in an experimental setup as the UDRP.

You probably also hope that it does not mean that I think people with red 
hair are inferior to others.

Both hopes are equally independent of my actual statement.  In other words, 
your apparent interpretation suggests a need to read my statement more 
carefully.

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, 09 Apr 2001 07:58:30 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Congratulations to the new chairs

My congratulations on your selection as the GA choice for new GA chairs.

You have plenty of work ahead of you, in trying to make sure the opinions 
of the GA are heard in ICANN, in trying to make sure debate in the GA is 
conducted in a manner that clearly exposes the will of the GA, and in 
trying to make the GA an inclusive body where those who want to participate 
in ICANN DNSO activities can participate effectively.

I wish you lots of luck!

- --
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, 09 Apr 2001 10:14:09 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases

At 11:09 08.04.2001 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > Having heard one or another report that someone, somewhere
> > has some sort of
> > problem does not warrant making a change to ensure that that
> > particular
> > thing never happens again.
>
>However, it is a serious complaint that a performance tracking system does
>not exist for UDRP. It is simple to construct one and WIPO ain't broke.

I believe (based on a conversation with a WIPO person) that WIPO in fact 
does performance tracking for the UDRP as executed by WIPO.

However, this:

a) does nothing for ensuring consistency between UDRP providers
b) is unlikely to be made public, because it reflects directly on
    personnel issues, which are usually privacy-restricted.

I doubt the "simple" part of the statement above, though. What to track can 
be really fun to try to describe. But agree that no measurements = very 
little knowledge; it's a worthwhile exercise.

(BTW, wrt the "someone, somewhere" above: reports of problems that have 
domain names and WIPO/NADF/xxx docket numbers are quite a bit easier to 
discuss than "someone once reported that they had a problem".....)

- --
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, 09 Apr 2001 20:51:51 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Results of ranking vote for Chair and Alternate Chair to the GA

On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 12:59:36 -0500, you wrote:

>Congratulations and Best Wishes to our New Leaders:
>
>Danny Younger
>
>Patrick Corliss
>
>Good Luck Guys......:)
>

Ditto for me.  Congrats to both as you move into roles which will be
very important in increasing the respect and influence of the GA.

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: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 20:51:46 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Removal of Directors

On Sun, 8 Apr 2001 09:16:04 -0700, you wrote:

>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.

And what was the vote in favour of the new contract?  Around 5 out of
19?

It would seem common sense and courtesy for the DNSO appointed
Directors to at least communicate why they voted the way they did.
They have no legal obligation to do so, but if they want reappointment
it would seem sensible.

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: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 10:52:01 +0100
From: Pilar Luque <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Language Diversity in ICANN working practices

Dear all,

As you may all remember, as a result of the dicussion on language
Diversity during the ICANN Melbourne meetings and as the Chairmann of
the Board asked me to help on the building of a Paper for Public
Discussion,  I am preparing for a paper for approval from Mr Vint Cerf
to be dicussed
during the Stokholm Public Forum with exact data on cost and
organisational needs for Language Diversity in ICANN working
procedures.  I am getting my data from sources such as the ITU, UN and
European Union Simultaneous Interpreting and Translating Depatments.  I
will post the results as soon as I have them ready.

I will be expecting your wholehearted support.

Regards,

Pilar LUQUE (.es ccTLD External Relations Manager)
- --
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, 9 Apr 2001 01:11:08 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases

> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 1:14 AM
> 
> At 11:09 08.04.2001 -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > > Having heard one or another report that someone, somewhere
> > > has some sort of
> > > problem does not warrant making a change to ensure that that
> > > particular
> > > thing never happens again.
> >
> >However, it is a serious complaint that a performance 
> tracking system does
> >not exist for UDRP. It is simple to construct one and WIPO 
> ain't broke.
> 
> I believe (based on a conversation with a WIPO person) that 
> WIPO in fact 
> does performance tracking for the UDRP as executed by WIPO.

What WIPO does, since we can't see it, is irrelevent if they cannot publish
the metrics. Personal data can be abstracted, there are known ways to do
this. Also, one of the most damning arguments is that court cases are
puclicly available documents and, as you indicate here, UDRP cases aren't.
However, I don't need, or care, to see detailed arguments.  I just want to
see the management metrics, which are also much of the statistics we are
arguing about here.

> However, this:
> 
> a) does nothing for ensuring consistency between UDRP providers

That depends on the sort of metrics that are kept. Very few also realize
that the appeals courts are a way of grading a judges performance. Had we an
appeals process, wrt UDRP, we would also be screening Arbitrators. Need I
prove the economic disadvantage of a losing defendant? Lacking an appeals
process, statistical performance measurements and methods should be derived.

> b) is unlikely to be made public, because it reflects directly on
>     personnel issues, which are usually privacy-restricted.

see above.

> I doubt the "simple" part of the statement above, though. 
> What to track can be really fun to try to describe. 

Tracking a company's performance can be equally fun. I think that UDRP
performance statistics may be easier. I don't see where it is any more
difficult than SEI maturity levels and other management techniques. We may
or may not be able to track individual arbitrators, but aggregate statistics
can certainly be used to measure UDRP sysstem performance.

> But agree that no measurements = very little knowledge; it's a worthwhile
exercise.

Agreed.

> (BTW, wrt the "someone, somewhere" above: reports of problems 
> that have 
> domain names and WIPO/NADF/xxx docket numbers are quite a bit 
> easier to 
> discuss than "someone once reported that they had a problem".....)

Neither of them are very interesting except where there are many of them
with the same symptoms.
- --
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, 9 Apr 2001 19:13:59 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN benefits

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
|> Sent: Saturday, 7 April 2001 10:17 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] ICANN benefits
|>
<<SNIP>>
|>
|> Trademark conflicts were ambiguous and expensive.  In fact, NSI gave
|> trademark holders much more power than they have in law.  Now we have the
|> UDRP and things are vastly more straight-forward and vastly cheaper.
|>

The UDRP gives trademark holders much more power than they have in law and
actually contradicts a lot of legal provisions with regards to trademarks.  It
is more straight forward and vastly cheaper for trademark holders but
discriminates against domain registrants, making it more expensive and in some
cases, impossible to get redress.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 9 Apr 2001 19:21:17 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes 

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: On Behalf Of Russ Smith
|> Sent: Saturday, 7 April 2001 11:05 AM
|> Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes
|>
<<SNIP>>
|> Where people have contacted ICANN in these cases the staff says that ICANN
|> does not get involved.  However, many domain holders expected that ICANN
|> would be the main arbiter of such cases.  Certainly I expected ICANN to
|> develop a process to review such matters since the registrars often have an
|> interest in the outcome.  I view this function as a very high priority in
|> managing a shared registry system and is particularly important in the thin
|> registry model we now have.  At the same time ICANN is seen as getting
|> involved in issues which are viewed as well beyond their mandate.
|>
|> If we are keeping score I will give ICANN 0.5 points for getting involved
|> with the shared registry system prior to their official designation of
|> authority in Nov. 1999 and -1 point for not setting up a system to handle
|> these situations for a total of -0.5.

This is one area that the UDRP really disappoints me.  It should be a mechanism
to a handle ALL domain disputes and not just trademark issues.  If it was
designed as a true Universal Resolution Policy I would be more inclined to
recognise it.  At the moment it is only a mechanism used by one power block for
their own ends and does not serve the Internet community.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 09 Apr 2001 12:01:03 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Board decisions (2)

- --=====================_8197753==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Dear Kent,
I understand Danny's mail proposes two different things.

1) to ask the DNSO elect Directors who did not vote as per the DNSO's
     recomendation to resign.

     >>> here you points seem acceptable to me once accepted the
            continuation of the Dennis Jennings' error. Joe Sims testified
            about this in a way which makes clear that he altered the
            SO bylaws in the DNSO case to accomodate within the DNSO
            the @lagre interests (consumers) as proposed by Dennis. The
            whole WG-Review issue and the @large Study Group are
            actually about correcting that error.

            You faught against it at the WG-Review - what was your
            perfect right - with the inconsious help of a few newbies to
            the point the WG-R lost track (you named it hi-jacking) and
            did not obtain what its initial Chair intended i.e. a parallel
            and common effort of clarification and of reorganization over
            the same period of time between the DNSO (interested in
            consensus on netwide issues) and the @large (interested
            in voting on stakeholders interests).

     The disagreement is between a bottom-up organization that
     most support and the top-down approach you favor. IMHO both
     approaches are wrong: iCANN should be a top-flat/bottom-flat
     organization, where national and market internet communities
     [represented by their NIC] confederate to obtain a few common
     services, and where professionnal competences may meet and
     offer pertinent advises and may coordinate asssitance.

2) to establish the procedure for the DNSO elect Director to be
     removed.

     >>> I think Danny is right. We need that procedure to be
            established to provide guide lines helping us never
            having to use it.

            Otherwise we will continue having comments as:
            http://www.icbtollfree.com/Article.cfm?ArticleId=418
            and uncertaintity at voting time for our Directors.

     The trade mark system is not for Mr. Touton to give some
     ownership of English, Chinese, French or Indi languages.
     (again IMHO the most important issue in the Plan B is .org
     being given to iCANN/Staff with permission to kill).

     You will not make me believe that Jonathan Cohen does
     not support plan B for partisan reasons he has always been
     clear about (I do not think they are in the best global interest
     of the Internet community but the NC obviously decided it
     could in favoring him to Jamie Love).

     I understand the support given by Alejandro Pisanty as a
     general support to Vint Cerf so the iCANN does not look
     divided in front of the DoC, the press and the opinion. If this
     is the case the responsibility taken is tremendous and
     would be ours. Would clear rules have obliged Alejandro
     to vote according to the DNSO position, he could have
     joined Abril i Abril.

     On that issue, I quote the later trhough Ted Byfield (URL above) :

<quote>

My own impression, having sat through four numbing days of the ICANN 
meeting, is that the ICANN board, with a few possible exceptions, is 
neither venal nor corrupt but, rather, clueless: they spent an inordinate 
amount of time listening to Sims and Touton tell them what was happening.

Newly elected board member Amadeu Abril i Abril put it best when he spoke 
of the lingering problems with the NSI agreements: "I don't like these 
agreements... This is the best agreement we could have, given the 
circumstances... What I still wonder is why the circumstances were 
artificially altered." He went on to say that he thinks the U.S. government 
owes us an explanation of how this whole fiasco came about. I think Sims 
and Touton owe it to us. And once the full force of the UDRP become clear, 
I think you'll agree.

</quote>

Jefsey

On 17:25 08/04/01, Kent Crispin said:

>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

- --=====================_8197753==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Dear Kent,<br>
I understand Danny's mail proposes two different things.<br>
<br>
1) to ask the DNSO elect Directors who did not vote as per the DNSO's
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; recomendation to resign.<br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt;&gt; here you points seem acceptable to me
once accepted the<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; continuation
of the Dennis Jennings' error. Joe Sims testified<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; about this
in a way which makes clear that he altered the <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; SO bylaws in
the DNSO case to accomodate within the DNSO <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the @lagre
interests (consumers) as proposed by Dennis. The<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; whole
WG-Review issue and the @large Study Group are<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; actually
about correcting that error. <br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; You faught
against it at the WG-Review - what was your <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; perfect
right - with the inconsious help of a few newbies to <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the point
the WG-R lost track (you named it hi-jacking) and <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; did not
obtain what its initial Chair intended  i.e. a parallel <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and common
effort of clarification and of reorganization over <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the same
period of time between the DNSO (interested in <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; consensus on
netwide issues) and the @large (interested <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; in voting on
stakeholders interests). <br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The disagreement is between a bottom-up organization
that <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; most support and the top-down approach you favor. IMHO
both<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; approaches are wrong: iCANN should be a
top-flat/bottom-flat <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; organization, where national and market internet
communities <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; [represented by their NIC] confederate to obtain a few
common <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; services, and where professionnal competences may meet
and <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; offer pertinent advises and may coordinate
asssitance.<br>
<br>
2) to establish the procedure for the DNSO elect Director to be <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; removed. <br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt;&gt; I think Danny is right. We need that
procedure to be<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; established
to provide guide lines helping us never <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; having to
use it.<br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Otherwise we
will continue having comments as:<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<a href="http://www.icbtollfree.com/Article.cfm?ArticleId=418" eudora="autourl">http://www.icbtollfree.com/Article.cfm?ArticleId=418</a><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and
uncertaintity at voting time for our Directors.<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The trade mark system is not for Mr. Touton to give
some<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ownership of English, Chinese, French or Indi
languages. <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (again IMHO the most important issue in the Plan B is
.org<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; being given to iCANN/Staff with permission to
kill).<br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; You will not make me believe that Jonathan Cohen
does<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; not support plan B for partisan reasons he has always
been<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; clear about (I do not think they are in the best
global interest <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; of the Internet community but the NC obviously decided
it<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; could in favoring him to Jamie Love). <br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I understand the support given by Alejandro Pisanty as
a <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; general support to Vint Cerf so the iCANN does not
look <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; divided in front of the DoC, the press and the
opinion. If this<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; is the case the responsibility taken is tremendous and
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; would be ours. Would clear rules have obliged
Alejandro<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to vote according to the DNSO position, he could have
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; joined Abril i Abril. <br>
<br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; On that issue, I quote the later trhough Ted Byfield
(URL above) :<br>
<br>
&lt;quote&gt;<br>
<br>
My own impression, having sat through four numbing days of the ICANN
meeting, is that the ICANN board, with a few possible exceptions, is
neither venal nor corrupt but, rather, clueless: they spent an
<i>inordinate</i> amount of time listening to Sims and Touton tell them
what was happening. <br>
<br>
Newly elected board member Amadeu Abril i Abril put it best when he spoke
of the lingering problems with the NSI agreements: &quot;I don't like
these agreements... This is the best agreement we could have, given the
circumstances... What I still wonder is why the circumstances were
artificially altered.&quot; He went on to say that he thinks the U.S.
government owes us an explanation of how this whole fiasco came about. I
think Sims and Touton owe it to us. And once the full force of the UDRP
become clear, I think you'll agree.<br>
<br>
&lt;/quote&gt;<br>
<br>
Jefsey<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 17:25 08/04/01, Kent Crispin said:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 12:17:16PM
+0200, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:<br>
&gt; Mr Chairman, members of the ICANN board, members of NC, <br>
&gt; members of constituencies and GA<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; A) CHANGE OF BYLAWS<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt;&nbsp; it was hard to imagine, but it happened : the board of ICANN
used<br>
&gt;&nbsp; the power they have (according the bylaws) and voted against
the<br>
&gt;&nbsp; recommendations of the DNSO constituencies and 
community.<br>
<br>
According to the bylaws, a &quot;recommendation of the DNSO&quot;
requires a<br>
majority vote of the elected members of the names council, and a<br>
&quot;consensus&quot; position of the DNSO requires a 2/3 vote of the
members of<br>
the NC.&nbsp; Nine of the 19 members of the NC voted that they
&quot;reluctantly&quot;<br>
favored the old contract.&nbsp; Nine is less than half the membership of
the<br>
NC; this is not a majority, therefore it was not a recommendation of
the<br>
DNSO. <br>
<br>
This particular formulation was arrived at, you may recall, in the<br>
context of a debate over the issue of a &quot;weak&quot; NC vs a
&quot;strong&quot; NC; this<br>
debate actually revolves around the more fundamental issue of the
rights<br>
of a minority vs the power of the majority, an issue that is <br>
encapsulated in the old saying &quot;democracy is two wolves and a sheep
<br>
voting on what to have for dinner&quot;.&nbsp; Without some kind of
safeguards <br>
for the rights of minority positions, a democracy is simply a tyranny
<br>
of the majority.<br>
<br>
There are two common approaches to dealing with this issue: 1) the
&quot;Bill<br>
of Rights&quot; approach, where certain rights are simply put beyond
the<br>
power of the majority to affect; and the &quot;super majority&quot; (or
&quot;rough<br>
consensus&quot;) approach, where decisions require much more than a
simple <br>
majority.&nbsp; (These approaches are not mutually exclusive, of
course.)<br>
<br>
In our context the &quot;minorities&quot; that were concerned about this
were the<br>
registries, both the ccTLDs and NSI.&nbsp; (Nowadays, the registrars are
also<br>
included in that class.) [You may recall that the ccTLD registries<br>
developed the notion of the &quot;producer/consumer&quot; split, which
was<br>
proposed in the DNSO formation meetings by Dennis Jennings: the<br>
&quot;producers&quot; (registries/registrars) are numerically a tiny
minority<br>
relative to the &quot;consumers&quot;, their interests are
frequently<br>
antagonistic, and the &quot;producers&quot; don't want to turn control of
their<br>
enterprises over to their customers.]<br>
<br>
In any case, the result in the bylaws was that, by intention, it
should<br>
be relatively hard for the NC to make a recommendation. <br>
<br>
[...]<br>
&gt; snip----------<br>
&gt;&nbsp; Article V, Section 8. DUTIES OF DIRECTORS<br>
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Directors shall serve as individuals who
have the duty to act in <br>
&gt; what they reasonably believe are the best interests of the<br>
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Corporation and not as representatives of
the subordinate entity <br>
&gt; that selected them, their employers, or any other organizations
or<br>
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; constituencies. <br>
&gt; snap---------------<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt;&nbsp; Making representatives ( elected boards ) responsible to those
who<br>
&gt;&nbsp; elected them is a fundamental issue IMO ( otherwise they are
not<br>
&gt;&nbsp; representatives in the words meaning ). <br>
<br>
In fact, they are not &quot;representatives&quot;, and they cannot
legally be so. <br>
That is a crucial difference between a government and a 
corporation;<br>
ICANN is a corporation, and its directors, by law, have a fiduciary
duty<br>
to the corporation and its purposes, and not to the people who<br>
(s)elected them.&nbsp; This is an absolutely fundamental
distinction.<br>
<br>
In the case of ICANN, the purposes of the corporation are to support
<br>
the bests of the Internet community as a whole -- not the interest of
<br>
the DNSO.<br>
<br>
&gt;&nbsp; I can not see any sense in participating in a body <br>
&gt;&nbsp; ( constituency ) which is ignored by the board; <br>
<br>
I'm sorry to tell you, but there is absolutely no way of avoiding
this<br>
- -- unless absolutely everyone agrees (which we know is not the
case),<br>
there will always be some group that disagrees with the outcome of a
<br>
decision -- and they will always have the option of saying that they
<br>
were &quot;ignored by the board&quot;.<br>
<br>
[...]<br>
<br>
&gt; B) RESPONSIBILITIES <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt;&nbsp; In addition I fail to see that the BoD followed Article VI,
Section 2<br>
&gt;&nbsp; RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS<br>
&gt;&nbsp; in which the process of taking decisions is described.<br>
&gt; snip--------------------------<br>
&gt; (f) If the Board declines to accept any recommendation of a <br>
&gt; Supporting Organization,<br>
<br>
As described above, in fact there was no recommendation.<br>
<br>
[...]<br>
<br>
&gt;&nbsp; Lets have a quick look to the members of BoD:<br>
<br>
You ask how the various board members can justify their action.&nbsp; In
my<br>
opinion it is clear that they voted for the result that they really<br>
think is best for the Internet Community, given the information that
was<br>
available:<br>
<br>
Looking down the list you provided, it is quite clear that none of
the<br>
board members are tied to NSI/VRSN.&nbsp; Moreover, the history of
conflicts<br>
between ICANN and NSI is such that it is very hard to imagine that<br>
either the board or the staff of ICANN have any particular love for NSI.
<br>
Nor can we presume that the board and staff are unknowledgable about
the<br>
ways of the world, or that they are ignorant of the business
realities<br>
that are fundamental to this issue.&nbsp; Unlike some of those that
strongly<br>
oppose the new agreements, none of the board members have any
obvious<br>
vested interest in in the outcome.&nbsp; There is no evidence at all of
any<br>
conspiracy among the board members -- in fact, quite the contrary...
<br>
And your letter is adequate proof that there is no particular
political<br>
advantage that the board members gain for this vote. <br>
<br>
Consequently, there is no reasonable explanation for the outcome of the
<br>
vote except that the board really thinks this is the best result.<br>
<br>
If you disagree with that assessment, I would be interested to know 
<br>
your explanation for the outcome.<br>
<br>
- -- <br>
Kent
Crispin&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&quot;Be good, and you will be<br>
[email-masked]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
lonesome.&quot; -- Mark Twain<br>
- --<br>
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.<br>
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe<br>
(&quot;unsubscribe ga&quot; in the body of the message).<br>
Archives at
<a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote></html>

- --=====================_8197753==_.ALT--

- --
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, 9 Apr 2001 20:41:31 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|> Roeland Meyer
|> Sent: Monday, 9 April 2001 6:11 PM
|> To: 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'; Roeland Meyer
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: RE: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases
|>
|>
|> What WIPO does, since we can't see it, is irrelevent if they cannot publish
|> the metrics. Personal data can be abstracted, there are known ways to do
|> this. Also, one of the most damning arguments is that court cases are
|> puclicly available documents and, as you indicate here, UDRP cases aren't.
|> However, I don't need, or care, to see detailed arguments.  I just want to
|> see the management metrics, which are also much of the statistics we are
|> arguing about here.
|

http://dcc.syr.edu/roughjustice.htm

Provides a number of statistics and a review of the UDRP.  Makes for an
interesting read.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch

- --
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 #363
************************