Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #404
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, April 19 2001           Volume 01 : Number 404

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

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:26:55 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 08:27:49 -0500, you wrote:

>I feel a simple warning to *all* would be a good choice of action.

I believe that a sensible course of action would be to rescind the
previously announced suspension and indeed treat this whole episode as
a final warning to all.  A auto-posted FAQ which includes the daily
limit in it would be a good idea - to be done monthly.

If one had the time, even a bit of script which automatically e-mailed
someone whenever they broke the limit with human intervention
necessary only if they receive more than say two warnings within a
month?

>Mr. WXW has created his own bed of bad behavior, the two weeks off should
>serve him well and be enforced.
>
>His further postings on the ga-full list do not show any remorse, but have
>only gone down hill in proper list decorum. IMHO.

I think these are two separate issues.  I have some concerns with the
announced suspension on the grounds of posting volume alone.  That is
the only issue before us.

If people feel there has separately been a breach of other list rules
then the list monitors will decide on that as objectively as possible
I am sure.

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: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:47:11 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:26:55 +1200, DPF wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 08:27:49 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>I feel a simple warning to *all* would be a good choice of action.
>
>I believe that a sensible course of action would be to rescind the
>previously announced suspension and indeed treat this whole episode as
>a final warning to all. 

I posted this before I saw Harald's final decision which I accept.

> A auto-posted FAQ which includes the daily
>limit in it would be a good idea - to be done monthly.
>
>If one had the time, even a bit of script which automatically e-mailed
>someone whenever they broke the limit with human intervention
>necessary only if they receive more than say two warnings within a
>month?

I still think the above may be worth considering.  Leave the final
decision to the monitors but have some automatic objective warnings.

Also my apology to those who have received a warning due to my
research.  That was not the intent.  

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: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:05:00 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

Hi David

Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 5:47 AM (AEST)
DPF <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Also my apology to those who have received a warning due to my
> research.  That was not the intent.  

I'm sure I speak for all of us in thanking you.

Thank you.
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 23:04:00 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

On 2001-04-17 16:46:37 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

>> Now, that means that the USG de facto has the control over the
>> DNS name space.

> That is far too simplistic, and that is in fact precisely the
> interesting question that Froomkin mentioned briefly, and then
> studiously ignored.  The USG has *asserted* that control, but
> that control is far, far more problematic and tentative than it
> appears.  

[...]

> This constraint of "not doing anything really stupid" seriously
> undercuts the simple statement that the "USG has defacto control". 

Still, the USG has some kind of control over the root. What Froomkin
is saying is (heavily simplified) that (1) the USG is bound to
constitution and law when exercising that control over the root, and
that (2) handing over its powers to any other party is most likely
leading to legal difficulties.

>> (Of course, the actual question to be answered is how this
>> monopoly can be fixed or brought under control.  Would
>> competition help?  Or couldn't it persist on that market?  What
>> kind of control mechanisms should be established so the single
>> player in that market is forced to take into account public
>> interest?)

> I'm sorry, but I think your analysis of ICANN-as-monopoly is
> *very* far from describing ICANN's real behavior or its real
> nature or even it's possible nature. I think a far better model
> for ICANN would be a professional society, or a industry
> standards body.

Let's diregard the USG's role, and let's look at the product ICANN
is offering to the public: The root zone file.  ICANN is currently
the only source for a generally-accepted root zone, that is, ICANN
is a (probably natural) monopoly on the market to root zone files.

As a consequence, ICANN controls - directly or indirectly - the
conditions under which domain name holders, registries, and
registrars act.

The fact that there is no competition to ICANN in particular means
that the marketplace can not take its role as a powerful instrument
of control.

Thus, ICANN is in a rather comfortable situation: As long as it's
not failing in a catastrophic way, customers will not replace it (by
another monopoly?).

You'll now, I guess, argue that all relevant stakeholders are
represented on ICANN's board of directors, that ICANN is getting
advice from the supporting organizations, and that additional
control over ICANN is unnecessary.  In arguing that way, you miss
two points: (1) The directors, once elected, have the duty to act in
the best interests of the corporation.  What if these interests are
not in line with those of the supporting organizations, or the
internet at large? (2) Supporting organizations are asked for
advice.  They can't veto, so by design, they can only exercise weak
control.  (Being able to recommend (!) the replacement of directors
isn't sufficient, since it is only a very coarse form of control.)

All this leads me to the conclusion that additional control must be
exercised over ICANN.  Electing members to the board may provide
some (very limited) remedy, and will certainly add to the
equilibrium of powers.  It is certainly not the grant unified
solution for all of ICANN's problems.

In fact, other mechanisms for controlling ICANN should be sought,
and this search should also concern the supporting organizations'
possibilities to control ICANN's activities.

Let me, finally, come to your mentioning of professional societies.
These societies have a role which is very distinct from the one
ICANN takes.  In particular, their rulemaking is usually subject to
members' approval and control, and it is usually only addressed at
members.  Both properties are not present with ICANN.  (Just to give
a simple example: There still is no such thing as an individual
domain name owners' constituency - but still ICANN makes or
implements rules which directly affect individual domain name
owners.) Also, these societies normally don't choose freely whom to
admit to a certain market and whom not.  A procedure such as the one
we have seen with respect to the new TLDs last year would be almost
unthinkable in the context of most such societies.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler			    <[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: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:15:25 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

At 02:04 PM 4/18/2001, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > I'm sorry, but I think your analysis of ICANN-as-monopoly is
> > *very* far from describing ICANN's real behavior or its real
> > nature or even it's possible nature. I think a far better model
> > for ICANN would be a professional society, or a industry
> > standards body.
>
>Let's diregard the USG's role, and let's look at the product ICANN
>is offering to the public: The root zone file.  ICANN is currently
>the only source for a generally-accepted root zone, that is, ICANN
>is a (probably natural) monopoly on the market to root zone files.

Let's just check a question about the use of the term "monopoly".

There is a type of oversight body, sometimes called a "public utilities 
commission".  It does not provide direct service; rather it oversees the 
work and pricing of those organizations that DO provide service.  I have 
never heard anyone refer to such a commission as a monopoly.

Please explain why you DO refer to a public utilities commission as a monopoly.

If you do not refer to them that way, then please explain the operational 
differences between the role and style of ICANN, versus such a commission.

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: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:32:12 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Rules and Procedures for voting and suspension.

Dear Chair:

I use this heavily snipped message of Mr. Corliss to try to convince you to take
action before it is to late. This is the alt-chair writing this post and after
taking away the several pages of him defending himself it is clear that our own
alt-chair does not even have a handle on the concepts of rule of order. Within the
same message he contradicts himself as to material rules/policies/practices and
custom.

You must immediately if not sooner establish rules which must be followed and
followed by the letter not by subjective and biased determinations of individuals. A
monarchy is a rule of man and what we need is not another king but a rule of law.
This last problem was so transparently a fight between Corliss and Walsh and Corliss
winning because he has position that it is shocking.

Patrick Corliss wrote:

However, you do have a valid point.  In this respect, I would advise that there

> has never been any intention to enforce the daily limit blindly.  The intention
> of the restriction was to reduce the overall "noise" on the list.
>
> Thus if a person occasionally goes over the limit, and posts six or even seven,
> emails, I would personally not consider this of utmost gravity.  But what we are
> talking about here, as far as I can see, is a systematic and deliberate breach
> of list protocols.  This is exactly the problem, and the harm, that the posting
> rules were introduced to combat in the first place.  It is not a minor matter.
>

The above shows a complete lack of knowledge of the differences between rules,
suggestions, custom and practice not to mention intention and motivation.

>
> There are many examples of "flame wars" on this and other lists.  My feeling is
> that we have constructive work to do and even your post is not assisting that
> task.  I have, for example, spent much of the past week working on list research
> and debate.
>
> To make it clear I am not just talking about an hour or two, here or there, I am
> talking about sustained effort for days and days.  With very little to show for
> it.  In fact, I genuinely feel this is very much a wasted effort unless we have
> your support.
>

The above illustrates the labor intensity required when making up and justifying
rules on the fly. It also shows the extent to which men will go to prove themselves
right instead of enforcing a rule.

>
> As I have been named (and now warned) I have checked my posts for the days in
> question.  This is not a trivial task because I am in Australia and perhaps 19
> hours difference in time from the West Coast of the States.  The details are
> below for ease of checking by anyone on the list who feels they need to do that.
>

> However, I am now left with 10 postings on 17 April  2001.  This was, of course,
> the day that I tried to bring the list to order in my official capacity as
> Co-Chair.
>
> By my count, five of these namely (2), (3), (6), (7) and (8) were clearly
> official
> And without checking, I think you'll find that I signed them as such.
>
> So this brings my posting to the exact limit of five on 17 April also.
>
> It is clear that I have taken great care to maintain my posting rate at exactly
> the five posts per day limit.  The fact that I reminded other people about the
> limit shows the genuine nature of my compliance.  I ask the the Chair to lift
> the warning
>
> You noted that Christopher Ambler breached the posting limit on 12, 14, 15
> April.  You will also recall that much of this was a debate with Mr Walsh.  I
> leave each of you to make your own judgment on its merits.  Mr Ambler is not now
> subscribed.
>
> However, it was to minimise such unnecessary posting that I posted the onlist
> reminder of the posting limts on 16 April, my local time.  I also intervened the
> next day.  It is as clear to me as could be that officials are entitled to
> expect some co-operation and goodwill from those who only so recently elected
> them.
>
> Many reference have been made to the posting limit and it was clearly adopted by
> the present administration by my posting addressed to Mr Ambler and Mr Walsh.
>

This has got to take the cake, if it is the poster's local time which determines the
24 hour period then why did Mr. Corliss have a hard time here? Doesn't he have a
sent file that can list time and dates for himself? If it is a list 24 hour then
what?
We are talking freedom of speech here in a supposedly bottom up method.  Top dogs
don't just make rules by posting something in a bottom up method. Since when does a
Chair and alt-chair become an administration.

It is irresponsible alt-chair posting like this that then gets later cited by some
records genius as establishing a rule.

>
> From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
> To: Christopher Ambler <[email-masked]>; William X. Walsh
> <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [GA] <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 2:19 PM
> Subject: [ga] Excessive Postings
>
> > Hi Everybody
> >
> > I can see this particular issue taking quite a few more postings to resolve.
> > For the sake of list decorum,  perhaps we should all try to keep to our five
> > postings per day limit.
> >
> > Meanwhile I'd ask the Chair Elect to call for volunteers to act as List
> Monitor.
>
> In case it is not still not clear, I again remind everybody of this list that
> there is a limit of five postings per day.  This is calculated on the basis of
> the posting party's own local time ending at midnight.  The List Monitors are
> given the discretion to allow minor and occasional breaches in circumstances of
> genuine attempts to comply.
>
> List Monitors should also consider the "harm" that this ruling is designed to
> address when applying their discretion towards postings over the daily limit.
>
> Note:    Although this posting contains an official reminder I must include it
> in my daily posting count.  Supporting documentation about my postings follows:
>

This last is so blatant as almost all of the snipped portions of this post are in
defense of the writer's own wrongful postings.

This has got to stop!  Mr. Younger you must establish written rules that are posted
that we can read and abide by or suffer consequences when violated.  They must be
put in place and then argued over and modified based upon written procedure for such
matters.

We must have firm voting rules.
We must have firm list decorum rules.
We must have firm modification of above rules.
There must be restrictions placed upon the obscene use of position that Mr. Corliss
is trying to manipulate.

Oh and hand picking the monitors - no, no, no, no, no!

Sincerely,
Eric Dierker

- --
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: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:46:24 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 11:04:00PM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2001-04-17 16:46:37 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
[...]
> > This constraint of "not doing anything really stupid" seriously
> > undercuts the simple statement that the "USG has defacto control". 
> 
> Still, the USG has some kind of control over the root.

For some reason that reminds me of:

  GLENDOWER 
      I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
  HOTSPUR 
      Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them?

   <http://tech-two.mit.edu/Shakespeare/1henryiv/1henryiv.3.1.html>

:-)

Sorry.  To be serious once more:

Yes -- the USG has "some kind of control" over the root.  But many
entities have "some kind of control" over the root.

> What Froomkin
> is saying is (heavily simplified) that (1) the USG is bound to
> constitution and law when exercising that control over the root, and
> that (2) handing over its powers to any other party is most likely
> leading to legal difficulties.

Sure, Froomkin is saying that.  But the nature of that "some kind of 
control" has bearing, don't you think?  If the control that the USG has a 
very weak basis, then Froomkin's paper is moot.  And when you look at 
that "some kind of control", what do you see?  You see that it actually 
consists of a contract to advertise a particular dataset on the 
network, which is *voluntarily* used by others, through a series of 
conventions and protocols controled by others.

I once asked a lawyer friend what happens if Froomkins scenario is
played out to it's logical conclusion? What happens if a US court
decides that the delegation of whatever to ICANN is unconstitutional?
The answer was an involved discussion with multiple scenarios, but 2
quite likely results were that 1) not much happens; or 2) industry pulls
"control" of the root completely away from the USG. 

> >> (Of course, the actual question to be answered is how this
> >> monopoly can be fixed or brought under control.  Would
> >> competition help?  Or couldn't it persist on that market?  What
> >> kind of control mechanisms should be established so the single
> >> player in that market is forced to take into account public
> >> interest?)
> 
> > I'm sorry, but I think your analysis of ICANN-as-monopoly is
> > *very* far from describing ICANN's real behavior or its real
> > nature or even it's possible nature. I think a far better model
> > for ICANN would be a professional society, or a industry
> > standards body.
> 
> Let's diregard the USG's role, and let's look at the product ICANN
> is offering to the public: The root zone file.

One could perhaps more sensibly think of ICANN as offering a product 
for registries and registrars.

>  ICANN is currently
> the only source for a generally-accepted root zone, that is, ICANN
> is a (probably natural) monopoly on the market to root zone files.

Yes.  And who normally oversees monopolies?

> As a consequence, ICANN controls - directly or indirectly - the
> conditions under which domain name holders, registries, and
> registrars act.

Yes.  Microsoft controls a great deal of the conditions under which you 
use software; the american medical association has tremendous influence 
on the medical care seen by the public.  What you are describing is not 
an unusual situation.

> The fact that there is no competition to ICANN in particular means
> that the marketplace can not take its role as a powerful instrument
> of control.
>
> Thus, ICANN is in a rather comfortable situation: As long as it's
> not failing in a catastrophic way, customers will not replace it (by
> another monopoly?).
> 
> You'll now, I guess, argue that all relevant stakeholders are
> represented on ICANN's board of directors,

No -- I would not argue that at all.  I would argue that the model of
oversight by representation on the board is fundamentally flawed. 

 that ICANN is getting
> advice from the supporting organizations, and that additional
> control over ICANN is unnecessary.  In arguing that way, you miss
> two points: (1) The directors, once elected, have the duty to act in
> the best interests of the corporation.  What if these interests are
> not in line with those of the supporting organizations, or the
> internet at large? (2) Supporting organizations are asked for
> advice.  They can't veto, so by design, they can only exercise weak
> control.  (Being able to recommend (!) the replacement of directors
> isn't sufficient, since it is only a very coarse form of control.)
> 
> All this leads me to the conclusion that additional control must be
> exercised over ICANN.

Yes.  That is the role of competition regulators.  They already exist; 
they in fact have international scope; this is precisely the kind of 
work they do.

>  Electing members to the board may provide
> some (very limited) remedy,

But not enough to make it worth the trouble, or the risk.

> and will certainly add to the
> equilibrium of powers.

No, that doesn't follow.  What was clearly demonstrated by the atlarge 
election is that political concerns overtake everything else.

> It is certainly not the grant unified
> solution for all of ICANN's problems.

It's not a solution at all.

> In fact, other mechanisms for controlling ICANN should be sought,
> and this search should also concern the supporting organizations'
> possibilities to control ICANN's activities.

The other mechanisms are anti-trust authorities.  This is what they do
for a living, you know. 

> Let me, finally, come to your mentioning of professional societies.
> These societies have a role which is very distinct from the one
> ICANN takes.  In particular, their rulemaking is usually subject to
> members' approval and control, and it is usually only addressed at
> members.  Both properties are not present with ICANN.

Sorry, you are "painting with too broad a brush".  There are activities
at all levels; some of them are approved by the membership, but a great
deal are not.  They have executive bodies that act on behalf of the
broad goals of the members; the members don't micromanage the activities
of the executive.

>  (Just to give
> a simple example: There still is no such thing as an individual
> domain name owners' constituency - but still ICANN makes or
> implements rules which directly affect individual domain name
> owners.) 

The American Medical Association has enormous and pervasive impact on
the medical care received by individual patients.  But individual 
patients are not members of the AMA.

> Also, these societies normally don't choose freely whom to
> admit to a certain market and whom not.  A procedure such as the one
> we have seen with respect to the new TLDs last year would be almost
> unthinkable in the context of most such societies.

There is a startup issue.  The choice of the 7 registries/TLDs was
*explicitly* a proof of concept trial, on the way to a longer term
steady state process.  Professional societies control many things that
affect the economics of their profession, but with an established
society, those policies are well established, and don't cause much
controversy.  But sometimes policy changes with economic impact *do*
happen -- in relatively recent times certain alternative therapies have
become acceptable, and practioners of those therapies now are eligible
for insurance payments and so on.  I don't know the precise role of the
American Medical Association in helping or hindering that, but there is
absolutely no question that the AMA's position on such issues, at the
very least, has tremendous influence.

- -- 
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: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:54:45 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 3:15 PM
> 
> At 02:04 PM 4/18/2001, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > > I'm sorry, but I think your analysis of ICANN-as-monopoly is
> > > *very* far from describing ICANN's real behavior or its real
> > > nature or even it's possible nature. I think a far better model
> > > for ICANN would be a professional society, or a industry
> > > standards body.
> >
> >Let's diregard the USG's role, and let's look at the product ICANN
> >is offering to the public: The root zone file.  ICANN is currently
> >the only source for a generally-accepted root zone, that is, ICANN
> >is a (probably natural) monopoly on the market to root zone files.
> 
> Let's just check a question about the use of the term "monopoly".
> 
> There is a type of oversight body, sometimes called a "public 
> utilities commission". 

The Public Utilities Commision that you are refering to is neither a
privately held corporation, nor is it ANY other sort of non-governmental
organization. It is a direct component of the government, a regulatory body.

> It does not provide direct service; rather it 
> oversees the work and pricing of those organizations that DO provide 
> service.  I have never heard anyone refer to such a commission as a
monopoly.
> 
> Please explain why you DO refer to a public utilities 
> commission as a monopoly.

[Not so nice a twist and you know it. I'd cut you some slack on this sloppy
logic. But, I just >know< that you're going to use it again later.]

He didn't make the connection to the PUC, you did. Please explain why you
don't think a PUC is a governmental or regulatory body. 

> If you do not refer to them that way, then please explain the 
> operational differences between the role and style of ICANN, versus such 
> a commission.

ICANN is a privately held CA corp. It is NOT a regulatory body.

However, ICANN does hold a USG contract, making it a USG contractor. Thus,
making it immune from various anti-trust regulations, as a USG agent.

- --
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: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:01:32 -0400
From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] List Monitors

"Certain persons appointed by the GA Chair (the list monitors) have the task
of monitoring the list for posts that violate these rules.  These are
selected by the GA Chair for a given period of time, but may be removed from
the role by the GA Chair or at their own request at any time.
A list monitor may also be removed by a majority vote of the General
Assembly.  Normally the appointment would be for 1 year."
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html

In response to a call for volunteers to serve as List Monitors,
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg00870.html I have been advised of
expressions of interest put forth by Bruce James, Kristy McKee, Alexander
Svensson, Patrick Corliss, and Harald Tveit Alvestrand.  Accordingly, I now
appoint these individuals to a one year term as Monitors of the GA List.

Danny Younger
GA Chair

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:57:04 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

Dave:

    You wrote:

>>Let's just check a question about the use of the term "monopoly".

There is a type of oversight body, sometimes called a "public utilities
commission".  It does not provide direct service; rather it oversees the
work and pricing of those organizations that DO provide service.  I have
never heard anyone refer to such a commission as a monopoly.<<

There in nothing to compare ICANN with, it is *unique*. One and only one;
sole; without equal. Please explain your position on how we can compare and
compare to what other organization?   ICANN is a *unique* monopoly!

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 17:15
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

At 02:04 PM 4/18/2001, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > I'm sorry, but I think your analysis of ICANN-as-monopoly is
> > *very* far from describing ICANN's real behavior or its real
> > nature or even it's possible nature. I think a far better model
> > for ICANN would be a professional society, or a industry
> > standards body.
>
>Let's diregard the USG's role, and let's look at the product ICANN
>is offering to the public: The root zone file.  ICANN is currently
>the only source for a generally-accepted root zone, that is, ICANN
>is a (probably natural) monopoly on the market to root zone files.

Let's just check a question about the use of the term "monopoly".

There is a type of oversight body, sometimes called a "public utilities
commission".  It does not provide direct service; rather it oversees the
work and pricing of those organizations that DO provide service.  I have
never heard anyone refer to such a commission as a monopoly.

Please explain why you DO refer to a public utilities commission as a
monopoly.

If you do not refer to them that way, then please explain the operational
differences between the role and style of ICANN, versus such a commission.

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-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: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:16:47 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 3:46 PM

> > In fact, other mechanisms for controlling ICANN should be sought,
> > and this search should also concern the supporting organizations'
> > possibilities to control ICANN's activities.
> 
> The other mechanisms are anti-trust authorities.  This is what they do
> for a living, you know. 

The fallacy here is assuming that ICANN falls under those regulations. As a
USG contractor, it doesn't. NSI has similarly proven this in court. As a USG
contractor, ICANN can be viewed as a USG agent and under the protection of
the USG wrt anti-trust and other normal business regulatory issues. The USG
carries a very lerge umbrella wrt its contractors/agents.

Please note, however, that this does not mean that ICANN is a regulatory
body of the USG. It is only an agent.
- --
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, 19 Apr 2001 10:05:16 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Agenda for the Stockholm Meeting

The Chair & GA Members

I have received a lot of support and welcome suggestions from members of this
list.  I thank them for their contributions.  One comment was that a lot of
people are frustrated with the level of noise on the GA. This was partly because
we haven't yet worked out what our "work" is.

It is perhaps true that when a group agrees upon work, they often coalesce and
... work.

I think there's a problem in direction but I think that there's also a lack of
definition in process and this chews up a lot of energy.  The election, for
example, opened a number of issues eg how many endorsements, what to do
when a candidate resigns, etc.  The list rules have also led to debate.

My feeling is that we should be driving the agenda in a more proactive way, not
just responding to the ICANN staff initiatives (like the Verisign contract).  I
am sure that, with goodwill, we can hammer out acceptable compromises (sorry,
consensus) on a whole range of policy issues.

My suggestion is that we start promoting a specific agenda for the GA meeting in
Stockholm.  Some policy issues that come to mind (in alhabetical order) are:

Accounting & Reporting
Alternate Root Systems (Colliders)
Conflict of Interests
Consensus Process
Constituency Structure
Dispute Resolution
Dot Org and Non-Profits
Generic & Chartered Domains
    (.com, .edu, .org, .us, etc.)
Electoral Procedures
Finance & Funding Support
ICANN Directors
Individual Constituency
List Rules & Protocols
Mailing List Facilities
Membership Structure
Multilingual DNS
Names Council Relationship
Outreach & Participation
Registrant/Whois Privacy
Registrar Accreditation, QA
Registry-Registrar Separation
Verisign Agreement
Voting and Electoral Issues
Website & Communication
Working Groups

It has also been suggested that we should also request directly to Philip & Paul
Kane (with copies to nc members) specific  inclusion of ga chair & co-chair in
next Names Council teleconf with budgeted time to promote the GA agenda for the
next year.  This seems to be a valuable idea and I thank the relevant person.

I'm sure I speak for you, Danny, when I say that we would welcome any feedback
from the list on what priority should be given to items on the proposed agenda..

Regards
Patrick Corliss
Co-Chair Elect

- --
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: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:57:43 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] List Monitors

Dear Mr. Younger;

This post is a fine example of the problems with the rules in place.  Your first
citation leads us to the rules you have cited very nicely.  Upon reviewing these
rules one finds all in order except that there is no mechanism to obtain a vote
of the GA for the removal of a monitor. It also does not state what type of
majority vote. So I guess we can assume that I may call for a vote right now to
remove Mr. Corliss as a list monitor, due to obvious conflict of interest, and
if 11 of us vote and 6 say remove he will be removed.  IN CASE THERE IS
CONFUSION I NOW CALL FOR THAT VOTE.

Sincerely,

Danny Younger wrote:

> "Certain persons appointed by the GA Chair (the list monitors) have the task
> of monitoring the list for posts that violate these rules.  These are
> selected by the GA Chair for a given period of time, but may be removed from
> the role by the GA Chair or at their own request at any time.
> A list monitor may also be removed by a majority vote of the General
> Assembly.  Normally the appointment would be for 1 year."
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
>
> In response to a call for volunteers to serve as List Monitors,
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg00870.html I have been advised of
> expressions of interest put forth by Bruce James, Kristy McKee, Alexander
> Svensson, Patrick Corliss, and Harald Tveit Alvestrand.  Accordingly, I now
> appoint these individuals to a one year term as Monitors of the GA List.
>
> Danny Younger
> GA Chair
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:07:35 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Final Posting on List Rules and Protocols

The Chair cc Members & List Monitors

Please note this is my final posting unless the issue is on the agenda for
proper discussion.  I regret that my attempts have been so miscontrued.

I have been subjected to a number of insults and personal attacks, on both
the restricted and full GA lists.  These are, in my opinion, contrary to the
list
rules which state that "respect to the participants is mandatory".  All messages
must also observe a minimum of decorum, including "not indulging in personal
attacks, insults or slander".

The List Rules have been brought to everyone's attention on several occasions
(see below).  I will not respond to any such attacks except by submitting a
complaint in each such instance to the properly constituted authority of the
List Monitors.  It is unnecessary for me to suggest that we all do the same.

However, I will take this opportunity to advise all members that I will not
participate in any adjudication by the List Monitors, or in fact any part of the
process, in which a complaint has been lodged either by me or against me.

All members of this list should be aware that all of the List Monitors are
members of the [ga-abuse] mailing list.  I would suggest in the event that
anybody wishes to make a complaint, in confidence, against me, or indeed
any of the List Monitors, they should consider whether they would prefer
to submit that in-confidence complaint directly to the Chair.

I have no doubt that the Chair will then deal with the matter appropriately.

Sincerely
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
Cc: [ga-abuse] <[email-masked]>; [GA] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 5:27 PM
Subject: [ga] Rules of Order for the Mailing Lists of the General Assembly

List of mailling lists and archives
http://www.dnso.org/listsdnso.html

Two main principles since the origin of this server in June 1999, explicited in
the welcome message sent by majordomo to every new subscriber:

(1)    the non cross-posting rule is reinforced
(2)    the respect to the participants is mandatory

More explicit rules of order are defined in
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html

The following rules apply to content of messages on the GA list:

The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
* Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
* Not using offensive language
If the GA Chair or a list monitor asks for a limit to the number of posts per
person per day, this must be respected.
The size of messages should be kept reasonable (there should be a VERY good
reason to send a message of more than 10 Kbytes).

Certain persons appointed by the GA Chair (the list monitors) have the task
of monitoring the list for posts that violate these rules.
These are selected by the GA Chair for a given period of time, but may be
removed from the role by the GA Chair or at their own request at any time.
A list monitor may also be removed by a majority vote of the General Assembly.
Normally the appointment would be for 1 year.

A list monitor may impose 2 sanctions against offenders:

- - Monitoring of posts. This will cause delay of postings from the affected
  individual until a list moderator approves them as being within the content
  rules, or rejects them
- - Suspension of posting rights. This will cause mail from that person not to be
  sent to the GA list.

Both sanctions are imposed for a limited period of time (typically 2 weeks),
and are announced on the mailing list. Repeat offenders may get correspondingly
longer sentences (for instance 4 weeks for a second offense, 8 weeks for a
third).  The period is decided by the list monitor.

Note that due to technical issues, monitoring one member's postings may cause
monitoring to be applied to other members' posts. This is to be avoided as far
as possible.

The action of the list monitor may be appealed to the GA Chair.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #404
************************