Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #378
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, April 13 2001            Volume 01 : Number 378

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

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:09:53 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 10:52 AM
> 
> Hello Christopher,
> 
> Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:14:28 AM, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> 
> > After which three other directors expressed agreement, and then a 
> > majority voted to agree with him not one, but FOUR times under
> > different wordings.
> 
> > By any criteria, it stood the test.
> 
> This is a mischaracterization.  One director had a problem, the others
> did not state their reasons, just agreeing with the outcome for
> whatever reason.

You weren't there William, Chris is right. Four times, they were asked and
they answered the same. Vint has to be given credit for derailing a setup,
though. Touton had pre-loaded another vote, that's why Vint had to ask four
times. To some extent, it was also a control issue between the BoD and their
executive employee.
- --
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:14:21 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

Hello Roeland,

Thursday, April 12, 2001, 11:09:53 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

>> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 10:52 AM
>> 
>> Hello Christopher,
>> 
>> Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:14:28 AM, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>> 
>> > After which three other directors expressed agreement, and then a 
>> > majority voted to agree with him not one, but FOUR times under
>> > different wordings.
>> 
>> > By any criteria, it stood the test.
>> 
>> This is a mischaracterization.  One director had a problem, the others
>> did not state their reasons, just agreeing with the outcome for
>> whatever reason.

> You weren't there William, Chris is right. Four times, they were asked and
> they answered the same.

What were they asked?  They were asked if they wanted to defer
approval of a .web registry, not specifically if that reason was
because of the existence of IOD's existing registration system.

- -- 
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:17:36 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

Re-watch the realvideo. That's not how it happened.

That one director was Dr. Vint Cerf, by the way. You know?
The father of the Internet? Ken and Linda also agreed.

Heck, even Captain Mike voted the to reserve (Vint's word,
not mine) .Web as a result of IOD's pioneering work (again,
Vint's words).

No mischaracterization at all. Sorry you don't like it, but
it's the way it is.

Christopher

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 10:51 AM
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

> Hello Christopher,
> 
> Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:14:28 AM, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> 
> > After which three other directors expressed agreement, and then a 
> > majority voted to agree with him not one, but FOUR times under
> > different wordings.
> 
> > By any criteria, it stood the test.
> 
> This is a mischaracterization.  One director had a problem, the others
> did not state their reasons, just agreeing with the outcome for
> whatever reason.
> 
> -- 
> 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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:19:24 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[6]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

> What were they asked?  They were asked if they wanted to defer
> approval of a .web registry, not specifically if that reason was
> because of the existence of IOD's existing registration system.

Excuse me?! Were we at the same meeting? That's *exactly*
why they voted. Four times. As I said, if you weren't there, I
invite you to watch the video archive. I was there. I was
watching. Rather intently, in fact, as 5 years of my life was on
the line.

Again, I'm sorry you don't like the outcome, but that's no reason
to try to rewrite history.

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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:23:03 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

Hello Christopher,

Thursday, April 12, 2001, 11:17:36 AM, Christopher Ambler wrote:

> Re-watch the realvideo. That's not how it happened.

> That one director was Dr. Vint Cerf, by the way. You know?
> The father of the Internet? Ken and Linda also agreed.

Oh please.  Don't even try and capitalize on Vint's name to bolster
the claim.

> Heck, even Captain Mike voted the to reserve (Vint's word,
> not mine) .Web as a result of IOD's pioneering work (again,
> Vint's words).

The only one who specifically said that IOD played any part in their
decision was Vint.  Because Vint chose to word his statement that way
does not in any way reflect on the reasons the others voted the way
they did.

If they want to make a statement about what motivated them to vote the
way they did, then ask them to do so.  Otherwise, your attributing a
motivation, simply because Vint Cerf chose to word his question in a
fashion that clearly indicated his own reasons for voting, is
misleading and irrelevant.

> No mischaracterization at all. Sorry you don't like it, but
> it's the way it is.

No, it's really not that way Chris.

- -- 
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:30:47 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[6]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

I see. Because each and every one didn't say, "I'm voting this
way specifically because I agree with Vint," they must not
agree?

That's a stretch, even for you.

You're as bad as Crocker!

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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:33:40 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[6]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 11:14 AM
> 
> Hello Roeland,
> 
> Thursday, April 12, 2001, 11:09:53 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> 
> >> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 10:52 AM
> >> 
> >> Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:14:28 AM, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >> 
> >> > After which three other directors expressed agreement, 
> and then a 
> >> > majority voted to agree with him not one, but FOUR times under
> >> > different wordings.
> >> 
> >> > By any criteria, it stood the test.
> >> 
> >> This is a mischaracterization.  One director had a 
> problem, the others
> >> did not state their reasons, just agreeing with the outcome for
> >> whatever reason.

That is not correct. They stated their issues clearly, in the surrounding
discussion. It took quite a while, as I recall. I was rather impressed with
the way Vint Cerf managed the discussion. There was no doubt, afterward,
what decision was made and why, only in your mind.

> > You weren't there William, Chris is right. Four times, they 
> were asked and
> > they answered the same.
> 
> What were they asked?  They were asked if they wanted to defer
> approval of a .web registry, not specifically if that reason was
> because of the existence of IOD's existing registration system.

Actually, see above, IOD's existing business was EXACTLY the reason it was
defered.
- --
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:40:16 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ;>)  Was: Re: [ga] Critics say VeriSign still has...

Hilarious.  I should not be sending without proof reading.  Please 
forgive the typo.  I think you realize it was supposed to be "public" 
root.  Even that was considered amuzing by some in AU who see 
the phrase as something else. :)

Leah

> >We've been registering names, using the TLD in commerce.  It's
> >real.  It works.  It's in use and has been for quite a while.  Before
> >our management, it was in use under another company's name - in a
> >pubic root.  Before that it was for usenet.  Long history of use.
> >
> 
> 
> For my own education in this matter, what is a "pubic root", and how
> is it related to the DNS?
> 
> (sorry, I could not resist)
> 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-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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:10:12 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[6]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 11:23 AM
> 
> Thursday, April 12, 2001, 11:17:36 AM, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> 
> > Re-watch the realvideo. That's not how it happened.
> 
> > That one director was Dr. Vint Cerf, by the way. You know?
> > The father of the Internet? Ken and Linda also agreed.
> 
> Oh please.  Don't even try and capitalize on Vint's name to bolster
> the claim.

No *that's* a mischaracterization. Vint is the one that led the charge. You
can't talk about this *without* mentioning Vint.

> > Heck, even Captain Mike voted the to reserve (Vint's word,
> > not mine) .Web as a result of IOD's pioneering work (again,
> > Vint's words).
> 
> The only one who specifically said that IOD played any part in their
> decision was Vint.  Because Vint chose to word his statement that way
> does not in any way reflect on the reasons the others voted the way
> they did.

When did you get your certification/degree in telepathy?

One of the problems of not actually being on-site is that you miss the
surrounding discussions. This is why an eye-witness trumps a remote
observer.
- --
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:17:56 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[8]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

Hello Christopher,

Thursday, April 12, 2001, 11:30:47 AM, Christopher Ambler wrote:

> I see. Because each and every one didn't say, "I'm voting this
> way specifically because I agree with Vint," they must not
> agree?

> That's a stretch, even for you.

What I find a stretch is how quickly and easily you are willing to
attribute a motivation to their vote despite no clear statement from
them to that effect.

I won't comment on your little personal attack.

- -- 
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:31:56 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[8]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

> What I find a stretch is how quickly and easily you are willing to
> attribute a motivation to their vote despite no clear statement from
> them to that effect.

Person 1 says, "I think we should go out for pizza. Who agrees?"
Everyone votes, and people 2-13 agree.

And you can say, "There's no indication that they agreed that
going out for pizza is a good idea?!" Then what did they
vote on?!

Board votes to give Afilias .Web. Then Vint says, "I think we 
should not give .Web to Afilias because of IOD." They vote
again, and the majority agrees. Why did they agree, then?

> I won't comment on your little personal attack.

Saying that you're arguing like Dave Crocker was a personal
attack? Guess that shows how you feel about Dave?

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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:40:02 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[10]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

Hello Christopher,

If you insist on pursuing this...

Thursday, April 12, 2001, 12:31:56 PM, Christopher Ambler wrote:

>> What I find a stretch is how quickly and easily you are willing to
>> attribute a motivation to their vote despite no clear statement from
>> them to that effect.

> Person 1 says, "I think we should go out for pizza. Who agrees?"
> Everyone votes, and people 2-13 agree.

> And you can say, "There's no indication that they agreed that
> going out for pizza is a good idea?!" Then what did they
> vote on?!

Not the same thing.

It is more like Person 1 saying "I prefer not to go to ZYX Pizzeria,
because they put too much cheese on their pizza, would everyone else
like to go to CBA Pizzeria instead?"

And everyone else says "Yes."

Do you assume they all agree that ZYX Pizzeria puts too much cheese on
their pizza?

No.

The bottom line is that one board member, ONE, expressed a reason for
not granting .web to Afilias.  Others voted that they preferred giving
.info over .web, and did not express a reason for their vote.

That is the historical fact.

Can we end this now?

- -- 
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:39:48 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[8]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 12:18 PM
> 
> Hello Christopher,
> 
> Thursday, April 12, 2001, 11:30:47 AM, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> 
> > I see. Because each and every one didn't say, "I'm voting this
> > way specifically because I agree with Vint," they must not
> > agree?
> 
> > That's a stretch, even for you.
> 
> What I find a stretch is how quickly and easily you are willing to
> attribute a motivation to their vote despite no clear statement from
> them to that effect.

What I find amazing is your willingness to believe that anything, that you
couldn't see, from your 300 mile perch, didn't happen. If you really want to
deny facts, that everyone there saw happen, and to disclaim eye-witnesses,
you should really attend, at least one, ICANN meeting. You might get a clue.
I've had this conversation with you before and this behavior doesn't do your
credibility much good.

> I won't comment on your little personal attack.

I attribute that to his frustration 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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:44:05 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[10]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

Hello Roeland,

Thursday, April 12, 2001, 12:39:48 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> What I find amazing is your willingness to believe that anything, that you
> couldn't see, from your 300 mile perch, didn't happen. If you really want to
> deny facts, that everyone there saw happen, and to disclaim eye-witnesses,
> you should really attend, at least one, ICANN meeting. You might get a clue.
> I've had this conversation with you before and this behavior doesn't do your
> credibility much good.

Roeland, a conversation implies that the other person was even engaged
with you.

- -- 
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:44:39 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[10]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

>plonk<

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 12:44 PM
> To: Roeland Meyer
> Cc: Christopher Ambler; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re[10]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)
> 
> 
> Hello Roeland,
> 
> Thursday, April 12, 2001, 12:39:48 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > What I find amazing is your willingness to believe that 
> anything, that you
> > couldn't see, from your 300 mile perch, didn't happen. If 
> you really want to
> > deny facts, that everyone there saw happen, and to disclaim 
> eye-witnesses,
> > you should really attend, at least one, ICANN meeting. You 
> might get a clue.
> > I've had this conversation with you before and this 
> behavior doesn't do your
> > credibility much good.
> 
> Roeland, a conversation implies that the other person was even engaged
> with you.
> 
> -- 
> 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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:46:13 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[10]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

> Can we end this now?

Nope, because you're wrong. To extend your analogy, it's like
everyone agreeing to go to XYZ pizza, and then one person
saying, "No, I hear that they use rat on their pizza, let's not
go there" and everyone else voting to not go there.

Can you presume that the reason was because of the rat?
Since they had previously voted to go there, yes, you can.
Unquestionably.

Especially when 2 of them, before the vote, specifically
say, "Oh, yeah, there's that rat thing."

Bottom line... they didn't go there. Rat or no rat.

Now can we end this?

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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:49:42 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[12]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

Hello Christopher,

Thursday, April 12, 2001, 12:46:13 PM, Christopher Ambler wrote:

> Now can we end this?

In disagreement.

- -- 
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:33:50 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Collisions in Namespace

To:  Philip Sheppard, Names Council Chair

There has been considerable discussion on the GA list regarding collisions
in namespace.  Arguments have been put forth that the ICANN Board action to
accept the .biz application constitutes a policy decision which may fragment
the net irrevocably.  Without commenting on the merits of this claim, it is
sufficient to note that domain name policy is the purview of the DNSO, and
that "Constituencies or GA participants may propose that the NC consider
domain name policies or recommendations."

As two principles addressed by the White Paper, stability and competition,
have been raised in the course of this debate, and whereas the Department of
Commerce has previously expressed concern regarding any actions which may
lead to the possibility of consumer "confusion", I now ask that the NC
consider the ICANN domain name policy with respect to collision with names
in the alternate root community.

As the consequences of such NC consideration may have serious monetary
repercussions for those directly impacted by any such consensus-based policy
recommendation, and as such consideration may well come to also impact users
of the Internet worldwide, I ask that a formal working group be convened to
allow for the full and unfiltered expression of all views on this topic.

Best regards,
Danny Younger

- --
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 22:11:32 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

At 03:32 12/04/01 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>Hello JandL,
>
>Thursday, April 12, 2001, 2:22:32 AM, JandL wrote:
>
>> Fourth, ICANN did not select .WEB for award to Afilias due to the 
>> fact that it was an operational registry...
>
>ONE director stated that has his reason for not wanting to grant .web.
>

ONE director (Hans K.) stated that that would be a good reason to award it
to Afilias anyway, Vint Cerf had reservations, it was debated briefly and
the majority of the Board decided to back away from such a confrontational
decision.

- --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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:45:16 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Collisions in Namespace

At 01:33 PM 4/12/2001, babybows.com wrote:
>I ask that a formal working group be convened to
>allow for the full and unfiltered expression of all views on this topic.

Danny,

1.  Presumably your request is being made as a member of the GA, rather 
than on behalf of the entire GA?

2.  Would you please state a specific question or issue to be considered, 
since your note did not define a specific problem or issue.  Yes, it 
referred to namespaces and fragmentation, but it was not at all clear what 
specific problem you are concerned about.

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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:51:32 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

> ONE director (Hans K.) stated that that would be a good reason to award it
> to Afilias anyway, Vint Cerf had reservations, it was debated briefly and
> the majority of the Board decided to back away from such a confrontational
> decision.

That same director was dead-set against IOD in part because it proposed
to be both registry and registrar. Even after pledging to accept registrars
immediately, that director said that being both a registry and a registrar
"[went] against everything we've worked for" over the past 2 years.

That same director then voted for the new Verisign contracts, making
them both registry and registrar for .com forever.

Hello?

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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:36:20 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

> From: Christopher Ambler [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 5:52 PM
> 
> > ONE director (Hans K.) stated that that would be a good 
> reason to award it
> > to Afilias anyway, Vint Cerf had reservations, it was 
> debated briefly and
> > the majority of the Board decided to back away from such a 
> confrontational
> > decision.
> 
> That same director was dead-set against IOD in part because 
> it proposed
> to be both registry and registrar. Even after pledging to 
> accept registrars
> immediately, that director said that being both a registry 
> and a registrar
> "[went] against everything we've worked for" over the past 2 years.
> 
> That same director then voted for the new Verisign contracts, making
> them both registry and registrar for .com forever.
> 
> Hello?

Simple, that director changed his mind. What you ought to notice is that the
precedent has now been set that the same entity can now be both registry and
registrar. More importantly, the entire BoD has voted on it. Even the ICANN
BoD would have a hard tinme justifying why they have different policies for
each registry. I am sure that DOC would rather have a consistent policy, to
defend with Congress, than individual ad hoc policy negotions.
- --
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:54:58 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> What you ought to notice is that the precedent has now been set that the same
> entity can now be both registry and registrar.

The U.S. Dept. of Commerce has thought for some time that this was
acceptable -- with proper precautions, such as the separation of revenue and
assets. This is Andrew Pincus' testimony from July, 1999:

   "The operations of a registry and of a registrar,
    if conducted by the same entity, should be
    separated so revenues and assets of the registry
    are not utilized to financially advantage registrar
    activities to the detriment of other registrars."

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/blileyrsp.htm

    -- Bret

P.S. Of course, he also wrote: "The Department of Commerce also expects the
ICANN Board to move expeditiously to establish a process and time-line for
electing At-Large Directors. This task must be ICANN's highest priority.
Indeed, we can think of very little that is more important to the success of
this experiment in self-ordering than the prompt establishment of a fully
elected Board of Directors."

- --
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 22:56:02 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

As a remote participant, I was witness to proceedings in Melbourne through
the Berkman Centre connection. Christopher Ambler's version of events
surrounding the IOD decision represents what I remember accurately.

Sincerely,
Joanna

on 4/12/01 8:51 PM, Christopher Ambler at [email-masked] wrote:

>> ONE director (Hans K.) stated that that would be a good reason to award it
>> to Afilias anyway, Vint Cerf had reservations, it was debated briefly and
>> the majority of the Board decided to back away from such a confrontational
>> decision.
> 
> That same director was dead-set against IOD in part because it proposed
> to be both registry and registrar. Even after pledging to accept registrars
> immediately, that director said that being both a registry and a registrar
> "[went] against everything we've worked for" over the past 2 years.
> 
> That same director then voted for the new Verisign contracts, making
> them both registry and registrar for .com forever.
> 
> Hello?
> 
> 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
> 

- --
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 23:16:56 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Collisions in Namespace

on 4/12/01 7:45 PM, Dave Crocker at [email-masked] wrote:

> At 01:33 PM 4/12/2001, babybows.com wrote:
>> I ask that a formal working group be convened to
>> allow for the full and unfiltered expression of all views on this topic.
> 
> Danny,
> 
> 1.  Presumably your request is being made as a member of the GA, rather
> than on behalf of the entire GA?

Neither. Danny is Chair of the GA. This is a position to which he has been
elected and from which he speaks.

> 
> 2.  Would you please state a specific question or issue to be considered,
> since your note did not define a specific problem or issue.  Yes, it
> referred to namespaces and fragmentation, but it was not at all clear what
> specific problem you are concerned about.
> 
> d/

Since when did the GA Chair agree to take instructions from a member?

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #378
************************