Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #366
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, April 10 2001           Volume 01 : Number 366

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

Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 15:52:27 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reminder: NC telecon 10 April 2001, agenda

Sounds like a workable idea....??  Free is a good price!

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Reminder: NC telecon 10 April 2001, agenda

Hi to all:

If DNSO were open to use free Internet technologies for audioconferences
instead
of telephone, the DNSO wouldn't have problems of funding teleconferences or
recording them.

Please, see http://www.vrvs.org

The NCDNHC used VRVS technology in Melbourne and we are planning to use it
in
Stockholm.

Also it can be used from any computer in the office and/or home as far as it
is
conected to internet (dialup, LAN, etc)

Best Regards
Vany

El lun, 09 abr 2001, Bret Fausett escribió:
> > And this isn't being covered using Internet technology why?
>
> As an interim solution until the new DNSO Secretariat is retained, I'm
> planning to provide a delayed webcast of tomorrow's meeting. I'll post the
> URL for the webcast to this list shortly after the call is concluded.
>
>    -- Bret
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 230-4011 exrt 213
Fax: (507) 230-3455
e-mail:  [email-masked]
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:07:42 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Reminder: NC telecon 10 April 2001, agenda

> From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 1:42 PM

> Please, see http://www.vrvs.org

Kewl! This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about.
- --
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 18:47:44 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

         In general, it's desirable that ICANN's structures be more nearly 
pro-competitive rather than anti-competitive.  Bret has suggested that a 
full, three-member gTLD constituency consisting only of incumbent 
registries will add an anticompetitive element to the ICANN structure, 
because incumbent registries will have an interest in opposing the addition 
of new entramts into their market -- and that a constituency that also 
included registry applicants would be more balanced.  Kent's answer, as 
best I understand it, is [1] an existing registry would favor the addition 
of a new TLD if it were proposing to operate that new TLD itself (but for 
the foreseeable future, there is *no* reason to believe ICANN will depart 
from its one-to-a-customer policy); [2] an existing registry might favor 
the addition of a particular new TLD where it believed that the applicant 
was undercapitalized and that it would later be able to, and would get 
ICANN permission to, purchase that newcomer (surely a longshot plan for the 
incumbent); and [3] anyway, it could be worse -- after all, if the gTLD 
constituency had more votes, the resulting structure would be even *more* 
anticompetitive.

         It doesn't seem to me that this response undercuts Bret's point at 
all.

Jon

At 01:04 PM 4/9/2001 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 12:10:39PM -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
> > This is a valuable thread and worthy of further consideration, if not
> > action. There needs to be a role for the prospective TLDs in the policy
> > process for future TLDs, evaluation of the testbed, and the reform of the
> > new TLD application process. They've certainly shown they are serious about
> > the ICANN process -- the $50,000 fee was more than a token.
> >
> > By not balancing the formal representation on the NC, there's a real
> > incentive for the current gTLD registries to use their votes to slow, 
> if not
> > block, the addition of any new TLDs beyond the seven currently approved.
>
>But 1) while plausible, the notion that the gTLD constituency would be
>united on this front is only a simplistic cartoon, and there are many
>scenarios where it simply doesn't hold (*); 2) it's only 3 votes out of
>21.
>
> > We at least need to be cognizant of the anti-competitive potential in
> > allowing existing market participants to have 3 votes on whether additional
> > competitors can have access to the registration market.
>
>Sure, be cognizant.  We need to be cognizant of lots of things.
>
>(*) You are overlooking, for example, the fact that a tld and a registry
>are not the same thing.  New TLDs offer opportunities for *old*
>registries.  And even if the new TLD comes with a new registry, new
>registries can be acquired, after the new registry spends its capital
>in an initial marketing push.

- --
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 19:54:19 -0400
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] New York Times - Critics say VeriSign still has advantage

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C0C12E.DEB78780
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

FYI.
Joanna 
April 9, 2001
Critics Say VeriSign Still Has Advantage
By SUSAN STELLIN

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/09/technology/09NAME.html?pagewanted=print 

- ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C0C12E.DEB78780
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2014.210" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D480544823-09042001><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>FYI.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D480544823-09042001><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Joanna =
</DIV>
<H5>April 9, 2001</H5><NYT_HEADLINE version=3D"1.0" type=3D" ">
<H2>Critics Say VeriSign Still Has =
Advantage</H2></NYT_HEADLINE><NYT_BYLINE=20
version=3D"1.0" type=3D" ">
<H5>By SUSAN STELLIN</H5></FONT></SPAN>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D480544823-09042001></SPAN><A=20
href=3D"http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/09/technology/09NAME.html?pagewant=
ed=3Dprint"><BR>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/09/technology/09NAME.html?=
pagewanted=3Dprint</A>=20
</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C0C12E.DEB78780--

- --
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 17:21:55 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 06:47:44PM -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> incumbent); and [3] anyway, it could be worse -- after all, if the gTLD 
> constituency had more votes, the resulting structure would be even *more* 
> anticompetitive.

Jeez.  What an absolutely silly and ridiculous distortion.  The gTLD
constituency is __14%__ of the NC, for petes sake.  By any measure that
is a small minority, and it is just silly to claim that the behavior of
such a small minority is going to make the "resulting structure"
anticompetitive. 

Recently Patrick Corliss has revived the old idea that the
representation should be equally divided between "producers" and
"consumers", which, depending on where you make the cut (ISPs and
resellers think of themselves as consumers, not producers) would
guarantee the registries far greater "power".  The ccTLDs are talking 
about getting their own SO.  And you are fretting about the 3 votes the 
gTLD constituency has.

I have my complaints about NSI as well, but it really looks to me like 
people have let their emotions completely destroy their reason.

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

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

Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 21:21:12 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

Kent Crispin wrote:

> I have my complaints about NSI as well, but it really looks to me like
> people have let their emotions completely destroy their reason.

Could you tell us specifically what your "complaints about NSI " are, Kent?  I
am interested in hearing what they might be.

Sincerely.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Individual

- --
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 18:31:44 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

If it's as inconsequential as Kent implies, then I fail to see the objection. I
can't help but wonder why Kent is arguing so forcefully against something
as irrelevant as he claims it to be.

Indeed, if Kent finds it of such small consequence, he should have no
objection towards those of us who do find it important.

As one who paid the $50,000, I'd be very pleased to have some
representation on the names council.

As a result of ICANN's insistence that all who submitted TLD applications
have not been turned down, but are, instead, "pending," I see no reason
why the gTLD constituency membership should not include all "pending"
registries as well.

Christopher

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kent Crispin" <[email-masked]>

> Jeez.  What an absolutely silly and ridiculous distortion.  The gTLD
> constituency is __14%__ of the NC, for petes sake.  By any measure that
> is a small minority, and it is just silly to claim that the behavior of
> such a small minority is going to make the "resulting structure"
> anticompetitive. 

> I have my complaints about NSI as well, but it really looks to me like 
> people have let their emotions completely destroy their reason.

- --
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 22:20:49 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

At 05:21 PM 4/9/2001 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 06:47:44PM -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> > incumbent); and [3] anyway, it could be worse -- after all, if the gTLD
> > constituency had more votes, the resulting structure would be even *more*
> > anticompetitive.
>
>Jeez.  What an absolutely silly and ridiculous distortion.  The gTLD
>constituency is __14%__ of the NC, for petes sake.  By any measure that
>is a small minority, and it is just silly to claim that the behavior of
>such a small minority is going to make the "resulting structure"
>anticompetitive.
>[snip]
>I have my complaints about NSI as well, but it really looks to me like
>people have let their emotions completely destroy their reason.

         I'm surprised at your vituperative response, Kent.  Back when the 
DNSO constituencies were formed, as you remember, ICANN paid great 
attention to the makeup and structure of each constituency.  The Board 
directed that it would recognize the various constituencies only 
provisionally, while staff worked with the organizers of each to ensure 
that their makeup and structure were open, fair, inclusive and 
procompetitive.  Nobody suggested then that ICANN should ignore such issues 
with respect to a given constituency on the ground that that constituency's 
representatives were only "14% of the NC, for petes sake."  Had anyone made 
such a suggestion at the time, it would have been viewed as, well, 
silly.  At the time, ICANN took the position that the gTLD constituency had 
only one member -- NSI.  Now that that constituency is being expanded, it's 
apppropriate to subject its makeup and structure to the same scrutiny that 
every other constituency got.

         (I'm also confused by your reference to NSI; it doesn't strike me 
that this is about NSI.  NSI's position within the "new" gTLD constituency 
will be determined by constituency rules yet to be determined (will all 
registries have an equal vote within the constituency? will they have votes 
weighted by their size?  if the latter, will there be a cap? etc.).  If I 
had to make a prediction, I'd guess that, entirely aside from the question 
whether the gTLD constituency should include prospective registries, those 
rules will end up ensuring that NSI will  have the practical ability to 
name exactly one NC representative of its own -- same as now.)

Jon

- --
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 19:49:52 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

At 06:31 PM 4/9/2001, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>If it's as inconsequential as Kent implies, then I fail to see the objection.

So we should automatically accept every suggestion that has minor impact, 
no matter how silly the suggestion?

The rule for rule-making is that you do NOT make changes just for the heck 
of it.  The criterion cannot be "we do not see any danger in making the 
change".  The criterion must be: "we see significant benefit in making the 
change."  Hence the burden for making their case lies with those seeking 
the change.

>  I
>can't help but wonder why Kent is arguing so forcefully against something
>as irrelevant as he claims it to be.

Your personal wonderings about people's motives are entirely inappropriate 
in a public discussion, and this list has enforcement against it.  For 
example, the fact that *I* wonder why you feel the need to question Kent's 
motives, is also inappropriate for discussion on this list.

>As one who paid the $50,000, I'd be very pleased to have some
>representation on the names council.

Of course you would.

But then, you would also like to see your independent .web forced onto ICANN.

>As a result of ICANN's insistence that all who submitted TLD applications
>have not been turned down, but are, instead, "pending," I see no reason
>why the gTLD constituency membership should not include all "pending"
>registries as well.

So anyone who forks over 50K should be allowed to be a member of that 
constituency?

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, 9 Apr 2001 22:54:24 -0400
From: "Andrew McLaughlin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] No Members?

Roberto:

You're right -- we have been discussing this since the At Large process last
year.  As the posted statistics make clear
<http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats/summary1.shtml>, ICANN received 10,334
returned letters.  As I explained in Marina del Rey last November, a large
portion of those involve addresses in countries where ASCII characters are
not commonly used.  We followed international standards for addressing, but
it is not surprising that errors were made by the applicants or postal
authorities.  As you note, we have also discussed this problem on the
icann-eu list.  Kent's points are correct -- all of the info he mentions has
been publicly available since last year.

- --Andrew

[ -----Original Message-----
[ From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
[ Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 8:37 AM
[ To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
[ Cc: [email-masked]
[ Subject: RE: [ga] No Members?
[ 
[ 
[ Joanna,
[ 
[ Now that the intervention of the list monitor has reconducted the thread 
[ into the limits of civil discourse, may I add something.
[ 
[ >Kent,
[ >You know, I would be most interested to know where you get this kind of
[ >information from. It's almost as if there's a private dialogue running
[ >offlist between you and a member of staff, providing you with answers to
[ >questions as they crop up. I mean, how could you possibly know there are
[ >boxes and boxes of undeliverable letters that contain a very 
[ large number 
[ >of
[ >addresses with non-roman character set unless you were there at the time
[ >physically in the office handling the post. Very odd to my way 
[ of thinking.
[ 
[ I knew that too.
[ In fact, I had several private conversations and exchange of 
[ e-mail messages 
[ with ICANN Staff on this subject, mostly with Andrew McLaughlin.
[ 
[ My point is that there is nothing secret in what Kent has said. 
[ There have 
[ been some postings from Andrew on this subject on icann-eu, a public list 
[ about European AtLarge members(1).
[ 
[ I am not sure, but I think that the issue about boxes of returned letters 
[ has been even mentioned by Andrew in Marina del Rey.
[ 
[ Regards
[ Roberto
[ 
[ (1) Disclaimer: I mean members in the broad sense, not necessarily in the 
[ sense of California Law ;>)
[ 
[ 
[ 
[ >
[ >
[ >On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 01:54:24PM -0700, Kristy McKee wrote:
[ > > Now that we've heard from the cheerleaders will someone from the team
[ > > please answer the question... I'd like to know where the money went as
[ >well.
[ >
[ >The original Markle grant was for a total of $200000, as I recall.
[ >There were over 150000 people who signed up, every one of them had a
[ >letter printed and mailed to them, and most of those were overseas.
[ >Though I don't know the details, obviously the entire original grant
[ >could easily have been swallowed in letter production and mailing costs
[ >alone.  More than half of the people sent letters did not finish the
[ >registration process; a very large number of letters were returned,
[ >especially from countries with non-roman character sets.
[ >
[ >Jody Baram was the project manager, her $30,000 for 6 months included
[ >benefits; that translates to around $30-40K per year as a normal paid
[ >employee.  Chicken feed, considering how incredibly thankless and
[ >stressful the job was.  I sure hope her next job was more congenial.
[ >
[ >The program went way over budget; I believe that the shortfall was made
[ >up through ICANN's operating funds, and perhaps an additional grant from
[ >Markle.  Jody's contract was extended at least once to help deal with
[ >the left over work, of which there was a lot.  There are boxes and boxes
[ >of undeliverable letters that were returned.  They were still getting
[ >returns from far away places, last I heard.
[ >
[ >--
[ >Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[ >[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
[ >--
[ >This message was passed to you v
ia 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
[ >
[ 
[ _________________________________________________________________________
[ 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: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 19:59:20 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

> The rule for rule-making is that you do NOT make changes just for the heck 
> of it.  The criterion cannot be "we do not see any danger in making the 
> change".  The criterion must be: "we see significant benefit in making the 
> change."  Hence the burden for making their case lies with those seeking 
> the change.

Excellent. I accept your point gladly. There is significant benefit in making
all applicants members of the gTLD constituency in that it prevents those with
a vested interest in delaying the process from having complete control, and
gives representation to those who have paid their fees and been told that
their applications are still pending. Anything less would be a clear lack
of direct representation for the pending gTLD registries. There is a clear
benefit to the criteria. I can't see a downside. I'd be pleased to entertain
suggestions of their existence.

> Your personal wonderings about people's motives are entirely inappropriate 
> in a public discussion...

I disagree. My motives, for example, are based on the fact that I work for
an application-pending registry. Yours, for example, are based on the fact
that you are on the payroll of NeuStar, a company with an interest in
an application-accepted registry. It's not an ad-hominem attack to point
out that an argument is clearly biased based on vested interests. I'm only
too happy to admit to mine.

> So anyone who forks over 50K should be allowed to be a member of that 
> constituency?

If you care to make that the gating function, you're welcome to do so. I
wouldn't put it that way, as the $50K was, in the context at hand, a side
effect of the application process. I believe it's more appropriate to simply 
say that the constituency is comprised of those gTLD registries under
contract or with accepted applications pending.

Christopher

- --
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 20:00:45 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency

> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 5:22 PM
> 
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 06:47:44PM -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> > incumbent); and [3] anyway, it could be worse -- after all, 
> if the gTLD 
> > constituency had more votes, the resulting structure would 
> be even *more* 
> > anticompetitive.
> 
> Jeez.  What an absolutely silly and ridiculous distortion.  The gTLD
> constituency is __14%__ of the NC, for petes sake.  By any 
> measure that
> is a small minority, and it is just silly to claim that the 
> behavior of
> such a small minority is going to make the "resulting structure"
> anticompetitive. 

What I find so silly and ridiculous is the degree of your response for what,
you claim, is such a trivial matter. Were it so trivial, why do you resist?

For the record, I happen to disagree with you.
- --
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 20:10:06 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Reminder: NC telecon 10 April 2001, agenda

Hello Bruce,

Monday, April 09, 2001, 1:52:27 PM, Bruce James wrote:

> Sounds like a workable idea....??  Free is a good price!

Even something simple and cross platform like SpeakFreely would be
workable.  It has both a broadcast and conference call like feature
that can be used to broadcast the telephone call easily.  All it would
take is a an existing system with a full duplex sound card and a voice
enabled modem, and the free telephony software Speakfreely.

You can even encrypt the connection, and control dissemination of the
key.

This would eliminate the need for expensive telephone conferences all
together, requiring each member to only be on an internet connected
computer and have the cross platform (free and open source)
speakfreely software (or any other standards compliant PC Phone
software).

Anyone who is interested in testing this kind of setup can contact me.

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:10:10 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency

> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 7:50 PM
> 
> At 06:31 PM 4/9/2001, Christopher Ambler wrote:

> >As one who paid the $50,000, I'd be very pleased to have some
> >representation on the names council.

> So anyone who forks over 50K should be allowed to be a member of that 
> constituency?

That's the part I really don't understand, why not? They paid good money for
a seat at the table. Now you say they don't have a chair? I for one and, I
thought, you and Kent for two more, would love to dilute NSI's place in the
NC a bit.

BTW, I don't think doing so would be anti-competitive in the least. If
anything, it'll give NSI someone else to talk to, in the gTLD playpen. Why
do you think that NSI would like to be the only ones there?
- --
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 23:18:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

The solution is obvious: prospective registries need to self-organize into
a new constituency and demand three votes on the names council.

On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

> At 05:21 PM 4/9/2001 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 06:47:44PM -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> > > incumbent); and [3] anyway, it could be worse -- after all, if the gTLD
> > > constituency had more votes, the resulting structure would be even *more*
> > > anticompetitive.
> >
> >Jeez.  What an absolutely silly and ridiculous distortion.  The gTLD
> >constituency is __14%__ of the NC, for petes sake.  By any measure that
> >is a small minority, and it is just silly to claim that the behavior of
> >such a small minority is going to make the "resulting structure"
> >anticompetitive.
> >[snip]
> >I have my complaints about NSI as well, but it really looks to me like
> >people have let their emotions completely destroy their reason.
> 
> 
>          I'm surprised at your vituperative response, Kent.  Back when the 
> DNSO constituencies were formed, as you remember, ICANN paid great 
> attention to the makeup and structure of each constituency.  The Board 
> directed that it would recognize the various constituencies only 
> provisionally, while staff worked with the organizers of each to ensure 
> that their makeup and structure were open, fair, inclusive and 
> procompetitive.  Nobody suggested then that ICANN should ignore such issues 
> with respect to a given constituency on the ground that that constituency's 
> representatives were only "14% of the NC, for petes sake."  Had anyone made 
> such a suggestion at the time, it would have been viewed as, well, 
> silly.  At the time, ICANN took the position that the gTLD constituency had 
> only one member -- NSI.  Now that that constituency is being expanded, it's 
> apppropriate to subject its makeup and structure to the same scrutiny that 
> every other constituency got.
> 
>          (I'm also confused by your reference to NSI; it doesn't strike me 
> that this is about NSI.  NSI's position within the "new" gTLD constituency 
> will be determined by constituency rules yet to be determined (will all 
> registries have an equal vote within the constituency? will they have votes 
> weighted by their size?  if the latter, will there be a cap? etc.).  If I 
> had to make a prediction, I'd guess that, entirely aside from the question 
> whether the gTLD constituency should include prospective registries, those 
> rules will end up ensuring that NSI will  have the practical ability to 
> name exactly one NC representative of its own -- same as now.)
> 
> Jon
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:31:59 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] gTLD Constituency

Hello Christopher,

Monday, April 09, 2001, 7:59:20 PM, Christopher Ambler wrote:

>> The rule for rule-making is that you do NOT make changes just for the heck 
>> of it.  The criterion cannot be "we do not see any danger in making the 
>> change".  The criterion must be: "we see significant benefit in making the 
>> change."  Hence the burden for making their case lies with those seeking 
>> the change.

> Excellent. I accept your point gladly. There is significant benefit in making
> all applicants members of the gTLD constituency in that it prevents those with
> a vested interest in delaying the process from having complete control, and
> gives representation to those who have paid their fees and been told that
> their applications are still pending. Anything less would be a clear lack
> of direct representation for the pending gTLD registries. There is a clear
> benefit to the criteria. I can't see a downside. I'd be pleased to entertain
> suggestions of their existence.

I'll toss in something to counter the argument that this would place
the producer/consumer balance out of whack.  Add an individual domain
holders constituency at the same time.

This would defeat the "out of balance" argument used against both of
those prospective constituencies.

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 23:55:21 -0400
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] No Members?

Andrew McLaughlin wrote Monday, April 09, 2001 10:54 PM
You're right -- we have been discussing this since the At Large process last
year.  As the posted statistics make clear
<http://www.atlargestudy.org/stats/summary1.shtml>, ICANN received 10,334
returned letters.   As you note, we have also discussed this problem on the
icann-eu list.

Hello Andrew,
Thank you for the clarification about boxes and boxes of @Large membership
verification returned to ICANN. I am not subscribed to icann-eu myself and
therefore did not know about discussions to which you refer. Is there a
public archive that I may review?.  As an EU citizen residing in the USA, I
am most interested in both perspectives.
Regards,
Joanna

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

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

Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 21:14:19 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

At 07:59 PM 4/9/2001, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > Hence the burden for making their case lies with those seeking the change.
>
>There is significant benefit in making
>all applicants members of the gTLD constituency in that it prevents those with
>a vested interest in delaying the process

Well, let's see.  Your underlying philosophy appears to be that each and 
every constituency needs to have balancing forces.  This is an entirely 
flawed philosophy, since the balance is supposed to come from the MIX of 
constituencies, not a balancing within each.  In fact, each constituency is 
SUPPOSED TO BE BIASED, in that it is supposed to represent its constituency!

But let us take the philosophy and apply it equally:

ccTLDs have shown a similar interest in delaying addition of new TLDs, so 
we had better require that the CCTLD constituency admit anyone who wishes 
to be a ccTLD registry.

The non-commercial constituency has shown downright ANTI-commercial 
tendencies, so I guess we had better require them to admit a balancing set 
of commercial members.

The intellectual property constituency has shown entirely too much tendency 
to be biased towards protecting intellectual property holders, so we had 
better require them to admit the anti-IP groups...

and so on.

sigh.

> > Your personal wonderings about people's motives are entirely inappropriate
> > in a public discussion...
>
>I disagree. My motives, for example, are based on the fact that I work for
>an application-pending registry.

Oh, so the reason that you feel the need to undermine other's arguments by 
attacking the speaker's motives is because you want to win, and evidently 
do not feel that the merits of your arguments are sufficient.  Well, thanks 
for the honesty.

>Yours, for example, are based on the fact
>that you are on the payroll of NeuStar,

And, of course, the fact that they became one of my clients only recently 
but that I have asserted pretty much the same points of view for the last 3 
1/3 years means, what?  I anticipated their needs?

That's the problems with attacking people's motives, Chris.  The attack is 
usually pure slander:  false and malicious.

And it has nothing at all to do with the real merits of the arguments being 
put forward.

>a company with an interest in
>an application-accepted registry.

And if you look at my posting delineating the full range of choices, for 
inclusion in the gTLD constituency, you will find that the personal 
preference I put forward is curiously at odds with the co-opted perspective 
you are predicted.

So, again we see that your basis is flawed to the point of silliness.

> > So anyone who forks over 50K should be allowed to be a member of that
> > constituency?
>
>If you care to make that the gating function, you're welcome to do so. I
>wouldn't put it that way,

No, of course you wouldn't, since it makes it so clear that the criterion 
you are favoring means that anyone can buy their way into that constituency.

>  I believe it's more appropriate to simply
>say that the constituency is comprised of those gTLD registries under
>contract or with accepted applications pending.

Let's check for consistency in your view:

Do you believe that anyone who has applied for US citizenship should be 
entitled to vote in US elections?

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 #366
************************