Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #406
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, April 19 2001           Volume 01 : Number 406

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

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:54:19 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Agenda for the Stockholm Meeting

At 11:28 19/04/01 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>At 10:05 19/04/01 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
>>
>>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..
>>
>
>Priority must be given to duly seconded motions.
>

It appears that my terse posting has been misunderstood.

What I mean is simply that the chairs' first place to look for priorities
is in the motions that have been seconded and not opposed. These are
expressions of the will of the Assembly for priorities in its agenda.
I hope it is now clear enough. <sigh>

Can the Chair or co-chair please summarize the seconded motions, opposed
and unopposed, that have been made since his election? 
- --joop

- --
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 22:39:07 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] List Monitors

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of Digitel - Ken Stubbs
|> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 10:11 PM
|> To: [email-masked]; Danny Younger
|> Cc: General assembly list
|> Subject: Re: [ga] List Monitors
|>
|>
|> i would agree 100% here with leah's post.
|>
|> this list is in the process of spinning off into oblivion
|> and losing any creditability & relevence

Although I agree with some aspects of Leah's post I totally discount
the following statement by Ken Stubbs.

Creditability is established by developing sound procedures and
process.  Also the work submissions that are developed, if they are
substantial and well documented.  The GA has been working on all these
and continues to do so.  In any large group attempting to communicate
there will be some that cause others discomfort.  The establishment of
procedures and processes to deal with such discomforts is never
trivial or a waste of time.

Nor should the postings of a few ever disrupt the major business of
any mailing list.  If such does occur, it is the fault of the list
rules and the participants.  As has often been pointed out, all
participants must decide the level of commitment and the number of
posts they read, to do so involves, in the majority of cases,
dismissing posts from participants that have shown a propensity to
make unsubstantial postings.

Personally I read all posts to the GA and most other lists I am on.  I
have developed my own systems for handling large volumes of mail.  I
do not respond to all posts and only offer new topics when I feel I
have something substantial or worthwhile to add or when I feel the
need to gain additional information.

I don't actually agree with posting limits but can appreciate others
feel more comfortable under such an umbrella.

I would suggest the following to any working group looking at the
mailing list rules:

* I have been lead to understand that there is a no cross-posting rule
in operation on the GA ML, perhaps CC and BCC lists should be
considered cross posting also.  Personally I object to getting
multiple copies of mail generated from the GA due to people using the
Reply All feature of their mail client or adding additional duplicate
recipients for their own purposes.

* Perhaps the list decorum rule could be adjusted to reflect the level
of discomfort felt by the list members.  Instead of a List Monitor
making a subjective judgement on the suitability of any postings, it
may be more objective to set the penalties on the number of complaints
made respecting certain posts or posters.  By this I would suggest
invoking penalties if the number of unique complaints sent to abuse
from list members reaches certain percentages.  For instance, if only
one to three abuse complaints are sent in, a warning only is sent.  If
5-10% of list participants send in a complaint, the offender is
suspended for two weeks and so on.  This would be an attempt to apply
an objective measurement to not the contents of the post complained
about, but the impact on the mailing list.

As I feel the urge to share ideas I will post them as appropriate.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

PS... See Ken, even this post contains some constructive elements and
is an attempt to improve the credibility and relevance of the GA :).

BTW... I would like to move that any working group formed to explore
improving the GA list rules, does so with the view that any submission
that emerges may be shared with the DNSO for dissemination to all
interested parties in an attempt to build better mechanisms for the
work of all.

- --
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 09:20:27 -0400
From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Mailing Lists for the GA

To:  Philip Sheppard, Names Council Chair

One consequence of the DNSO Review process has been a call by the ICANN
Board for proposals that "improve operations of the DNSO as it is
constituted today".

I am proud to have noted that the members of the General Assembly have
responded to this call to action by posting their comments as requested to
the ICANN Public Forum.  In particular, I wish to recognize the singular
contribution of the members of the Review Working Group, chaired by Sotiris
Sotiropoulos, that worked unceasingly in the pursuit of responsible
recommendations for improvements.

One such recommendation states:  "That the NC be encouraged to foster more
inclusive participation for the membership of the GA.  This includes the
regular establishment of relevant work, research, and/or drafting groups
that draw upon all interested parties within the GA."  Another
recommendation calls for providing "ongoing ML servers and/or forum
capability for new WGs and committees."

It is with respect to this latter point that I am now writing to you.
Several members of the General Assembly have recently echoed this sentiment
that the GA is in need of topical mailing lists to better facilitate work
item proposal and development, discussion of work items, and draft document
preparation for the research and drafting committees we seek to establish.

While discussions with the DNSO Secretariat on this topic have been
initiated (the Secretariat noting "procedures should be defined first,
probably with the NC"), the General Assembly is understandably anxious to
move forward as quickly as possible.  One contributor to the GA list
yesterday made this comment:  "Can we please see the WG lists established so
that we can WORK?"

I am asking for your assistance in moving this process forward as
expeditiously as possible.  If we need to work collaboratively to establish
any particular procedures, then let us do so forthwith.  We look forward to
continued cooperation with the NC.

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, 19 Apr 2001 09:27:10 -0400
From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Reply to Eric

Dear Eric,

Please accept my apologies in advance for what will be a lengthy
dissertation in response to your numerous posts to the GA list.  Let me
begin by quoting the adage, "Rome wasn't built in a day".  It has not even
been two weeks since the election rankings were posted, yet you appear to be
rankled by the fact that we have still not completely overhauled the rules
and procedures that guide the General Assembly.

You and I have had the benefit of participating in the Review Working Group.
I recall an observation by Roger Cochetti that is particularly apt; he
stated:  "Instead, the NC appears to have been more focused on procedures,
administrative practices, and matters that are more related to its own
process than to substantive matters."  The same comment might equally come
to be made about the GA should we choose to travel down this path.

I have chosen to focus my attention upon domain name policy issues.  This
is, after all, why we are all here.  I will outline my understanding of our
mission for the benefit of any newcomers to the ICANN process:

The GA is one of two bodies within an organization (the DNSO) that has been
established to provide consensus-based domain name policy guidance to the
ICANN Board.

While the Names Council of the DNSO is organized as a collection of
constituencies, the GA is organized as a collection of individuals (open to
all participants who have a knowledge of and an interest in issues
pertaining to the areas for which the DNSO has primary responsibility, and
who are willing to contribute time, effort and expertise to the work of the
DNSO, including work item proposal and development, discussion of work
items, draft document preparation, and participation in research and
drafting committees and working groups).

As such, the GA is an open forum that is designed to ultimately generate
substantive work-product (documents for consideration by the Board), that
stem from a consensus-based decision-making process.

These documents are central to any decision by the Board to adopt a new
policy as a "consensus policy"; thus, the work of the GA is critically
important.

"Consensus Policies" are those adopted based on a consensus among Internet
stakeholders represented in the ICANN process, as demonstrated by (1) the
adoption of the policy by the ICANN Board of Directors, (2) a recommendation
that the policy should be adopted,
by at least a two-thirds vote of the council of the ICANN Supporting
Organization to which the matter is delegated, and (3) a written report and
supporting materials (which must include all substantive submissions to the
Supporting Organization relating to the proposal) that (i) documents the
extent of agreement and disagreement among impacted groups, (ii) documents
the outreach process used to seek to achieve adequate representation of the
views of groups that are likely to be impacted, and (iii) documents the
nature and intensity of reasoned support and opposition to the proposed
policy.

It is the membership of the GA that provides the research and commentary
behind this written report and supporting materials.

A domain name consensus policy is implemented by way of language written
into contracts with accredited registrars and registries.  This is the only
true "power" that ICANN has.  An example of a future domain name policy
might be a decision taken to require registrars
to establish a 30-day grace period for expired domain names (there is no
single industry standard at the moment), and all such policies must
establish the need for such a "uniform" policy to exist (as opposed to
merely allowing for market dynamics to determine that which is in the best
interest of the consumer).

As the DNSO is not charged with the responsibility of preparing contract
language (this is the function of the ICANN staff), the DNSO must work in
advance of contract creation to lay the groundwork for the policy that the
Board may eventually adopt.

This obligation to work well in advance forces the GA membership to listen
to the concerns of the public, to determine whether there exists a need for
a uniform policy, and requires the GA membership to not only engage in
outreach to potentially impacted parties, but also to fully consider,
evaluate and document the extent of opposition and support for any proposed
future policy.

It was the recognition of this need to work well in advance that prompted me
to exercise my rights under the ByLaws to petition the NC to consider a
policy with respect to the upcoming prospect of collisions in namespace.
Should the NC agree to consider this matter, the GA will be called upon to
participate in some fashion.  I have recommended to the NC Chair the
establishment of a working group (which by tradition is provided with its
own mailing list).

Understanding that the GA will need to focus on domain name policy matters
in a more efficient manner, I have written to both the DNSO Secretariat and
to the NC Chair requesting assistance in the establishment of topical
mailing lists for the open committees that the GA will soon come to
establish.

The creation of additional mailing lists will hopefully result in a
task-oriented focus that will tend to limit the amount of acrimony that the
GA list has had to endure.  I am sure that you will agree that there were
very few incidents of "flaming" on the Review WG list (as the demand to get
the job done within a limited time frame clearly took precedence).

It is now time to determine our agenda for the immediate future.  Several
good suggestions have been made so far with regard to the types of issues we
may first wish to confront.  We may decide to work in parallel to the NC and
create lists for WHOIS/Privacy, UDRP, evaluating the new TLD rollout,
evaluating the Multilingual domain name test-bed operations, ongoing DNSO
Review.  We may instead decide to forge our own path and look at domain name
pre-registration activities, allegations of domain name hoarding, etc.  The
choice is ours to make.

Eric, within the Review WG your contributions were highly valued.  You chose
a topic area and provided all of us with a new understanding and
appreciation of the issues involved.  I am similarly looking forward to your
involvement in the GA as we move ahead to tackle some difficult areas.
Within the Review WG, rules were almost non-existent, yet we managed to get
the job done, on time, and in a thorough manner (and the Board responded to
our effort).

I would ask you to set aside your personal differences with myself and
Patrick, and to join us in making the GA an effective instrument for change.
You have strength of character, drive, initiative, and we would all count
ourselves fortunate to have your support.

Best regards,
Danny

- --
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 15:25:13 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Mailing Lists for the GA

Danny,
your proposal to have issue related mail lists for the GA seems sound to me.
I will talk with the DNSO secretariat to check on the technical/resources
side, discuss with the NC and get back to you.
Philip

- --
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 08:54:37 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Vint Cerf Replies to (most of) Your Questions

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0C8AE.5D1FBE40
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Vint Cerf Replies to (most of) Your Questions

http://www.icannwatch.org/

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0C8AE.5D1FBE40
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 http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2462.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2><FONT size=3D3>Vint Cerf =
Replies to (most=20
of) Your Questions</FONT></FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2><FONT=20
size=3D3></FONT></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2><FONT size=3D3><A=20
href=3D"http://www.icannwatch.org/">http://www.icannwatch.org/</A></FONT>=
</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></FONT></STRONG>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana =
size=3D2>/Bruce<BR></FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana=20
size=3D2>&nbsp;</DIV></FONT></STRONG></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0C8AE.5D1FBE40--

- --
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 09:05:15 -0700
From: "'Kent Crispin'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 04:16:47PM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > 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.

No fallacy at all.  ICANN is not supposed to stay a USG contractor for 
ever.  If it does, all this is moot -- it has direct oversight from the 
USG. 

- -- 
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: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:23:54 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

Thomas,

I think that this is the real question we are trying to answer (with very 
little success so far): what is ICANN and what should it be?
- - is it an (industry-driven) standardisation body?
- - is it a trade or professional society (self-regulation body)?
- - is it a (government-driven) regulatory body or agency?

IMHO, the confusion is that it is a little bit of all.
- - as an industry-driven standardisation body it sets standards (criteria), 
like adoption of UDRP
- - as a professional society it decides what are the criteria to get in 
(Registrar and/or Registry accreditation, for instance)
- - as a regulatory body it tries to enforce the standards it has set as a 
standardisation body

The main problem is to figure out the legal framework in which it operates, 
because depending on what point of view you take its legal liability is 
different.
Of course the jurisdiction is Califirnia, but what will be the parameters of 
judgement if there will be a lawsuit? (being this show run in the US, the 
correct question is not "if?" but "when?")

IANAL, and therefore I have a very foggy idea on whether somebody that has 
not been picked in the first run of TLDs has any chance to win a lawsuit, 
and on what grounds. What is most scary is that there are chances that 
he/she may win a lawsuit when the TLD is already operating with a different 
Registry, with all the consequences you may think of.
Or will USG, by endorsement of the choice of ICANN BoD, guarantee adequate 
legal protection (but in that case, forget all self-regulatory industry 
effort nonsense, ICANN is acting under strict authority of USG and Dave 
Crocker is right, we are facing a US regulatory body, with some 
"international" window-dressing).

Regards
Roberto

>From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection
>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:31:24 +0200
>
>On 2001-04-18 15:15:25 -0700, Dave Crocker 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.
>
>First of all, the C in ICANN stands for corporation, not for
>commission.  I'll quote Kent on that importance of that distinction
>(<[email-masked]>; the quoted text in the
>beginning is from Siegfried Langenbach):
>
>| >  Making representatives ( elected boards ) responsible to those
>| >  who elected them is a fundamental issue IMO ( otherwise they are
>| >  not representatives in the words meaning ).
>|
>| In fact, they are not "representatives", and they cannot legally be
>| so. That is a crucial difference between a government and a
>| corporation; ICANN is a corporation, and its directors, by law, have
>| a fiduciary duty to the corporation and its purposes, and not to the
>| people who (s)elected them.  This is an absolutely fundamental
>| distinction.
>
>Second, I'd like to recommend
><http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?monopoly> to you:
>
>| Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- +
>| 	pOlein to sell
>|
>|
>| 1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply,
>| 	or concerted action
>| 2 : exclusive possession or control
>| 3 : a commodity controlled by one party
>| 4 : one that has a monopoly
>
>Third, you may wish to have a look at the California PUC's web
>pages, where their legal basis, their organization, and public
>representation in the process are at least roughly described.
>You'll note that ICANN looks vastly different.
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________________
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: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:24:28 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] (no subject)

To all.
I suppose we could come back to a more sensible and therefore more
acceptable approach of the issues at stake. If I may I would like to
review some as they appear somewhat related.

1. Chairmanship
IMHO the Chairs should not have an other agenda than to be the best
servant of the ML. This was what Roberto and Harald roughly did.

- - this should not prevent them to participate to some threads, but it
   would mostly be in helping new areas to be investigated or in
   leading to consensus. So not to initiate new threats.
- - all our candidates - but the one who resigned - had an private
   agenda.  We have to live with it. I note that the most active was
   Eric and  the least was Patrick.

2. List Monitoring
I made clear that complaints should be carried in the open through
an automated system. Every position should be questionable -
including Chair and List Monitor. But we have not that system yet.

In the meanwhile I think it would be advisable that the Chair does
not appoint the altChair as a List Monitor, in the best interest of both
functions. Power separation is always the best. The best proof is
that Patrick had immediately to publish a rule exception.

3. Call to the Order
I wish to recall the Chairs that a good ML is first a well chaired
one. For several days I have a motion pending, seconded, fully
documented to have most of the discussions overloading this
ML to be ported elsewhere with a clear agenda. This motion has
not even been acknowledge by the Chair, and obviously not acted
upon. Either by vote or by the creation of an ML.

A second Motion by DPF with the same aim concerning a
competing topic and other topics widely discussed has been
seconded and documented. Not acknowledged.

Instead of sending posts over posts asking to reduce the post
number, abiding by the rules and making the posts to move
another place seems a more reasonable way to attain a post
reduction.

4. New Rules
Our new Chairman explained he has been elected on a agenda
which includes new rules to be set-up for this ML and the GA.
He has explained that he has set-up a sub-list for that.

I therefore call for:
- - that list to be Chaired by the alt-Chair as it is an important
   issue where the Chair cannot commit himself
- - that list to be reminded to everyone until it gets its momentum
- - its works to be regularly (every week?) reported by a post of
   its Chair to the GA.

5. Traffic
When you have to rules natural life there is a problem. Auto-
regulation has to be favored. I feel that the rule of 5 post is
absurd. It can only serve in the case of someone keeping
sending automated mails to the list.

We have to find and adopt auto-regulation solutions, the most
documented and accepted one being SIG MLs. Again: per topic
ad Member initiative, one sub-ML, one link on the DNSO/GA
page, position links on the sub-ML web site.

6. Conflicts of Interest
Eric has a major point in saying that Patrick is in competition with
iCANN. Actually iCANN has put itself in competition with quite all
of us except those it pays or paid by its partners or future partners.

This conflict does exist now with quite all the DNSO Members. The
pretension of regulating the content through the TLD has now lead
to the last conflict of interest (with NonCom at least) through the
intended take over of ".org". Positions taken here concerning plan
B shown that a lot of good reasons were at stake. Not to quote the
IDNH/O issue.

This question is fundamental to the DNSO/GA and to the future
of the iCANN. However it should be very seriously investigated
in a complete manner and not through Patrick's case:

a) Patrick is on a non-profit Board (TLDA)
b) among its targets TLDA aims at developing the iCANN in a
     way iCANN should accept as conform to its bylaws
c) several of the Members of this List are members of the TLDA
d) Eric's assumption that non-legacy TLDs are out for money
     is not necessarily true (I head non-profits associations for
     TLDs totally compliant with the iCANN vision of new TLDs).
     Also, the ccTLDs best practice and the gTLD contracts make
     an obligation to legacy TLDs to look for money. There is not
     anything equivalent at TLDA.

I wish some reason prevails on this list. We all have many
other things to do, starting with a better Internet. This list has
no other interest that helping us to go that way.

I thank all those sharing the same target to help us all to
make it.

Jefsey

- --
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 11:32:18 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

>>ICANN is acting under strict authority of USG and Dave
Crocker is right, we are facing a US regulatory body, with some
"international" window-dressing).<<

I believe this is the best definition of ICANN. IMHO..:)

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 11:23
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

Thomas,

I think that this is the real question we are trying to answer (with very
little success so far): what is ICANN and what should it be?
- - is it an (industry-driven) standardisation body?
- - is it a trade or professional society (self-regulation body)?
- - is it a (government-driven) regulatory body or agency?

IMHO, the confusion is that it is a little bit of all.
- - as an industry-driven standardisation body it sets standards (criteria),
like adoption of UDRP
- - as a professional society it decides what are the criteria to get in
(Registrar and/or Registry accreditation, for instance)
- - as a regulatory body it tries to enforce the standards it has set as a
standardisation body

The main problem is to figure out the legal framework in which it operates,
because depending on what point of view you take its legal liability is
different.
Of course the jurisdiction is Califirnia, but what will be the parameters of
judgement if there will be a lawsuit? (being this show run in the US, the
correct question is not "if?" but "when?")

IANAL, and therefore I have a very foggy idea on whether somebody that has
not been picked in the first run of TLDs has any chance to win a lawsuit,
and on what grounds. What is most scary is that there are chances that
he/she may win a lawsuit when the TLD is already operating with a different
Registry, with all the consequences you may think of.
Or will USG, by endorsement of the choice of ICANN BoD, guarantee adequate
legal protection (but in that case, forget all self-regulatory industry
effort nonsense, ICANN is acting under strict authority of USG and Dave
Crocker is right, we are facing a US regulatory body, with some
"international" window-dressing).

Regards
Roberto

>From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection
>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:31:24 +0200
>
>On 2001-04-18 15:15:25 -0700, Dave Crocker 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.
>
>First of all, the C in ICANN stands for corporation, not for
>commission.  I'll quote Kent on that importance of that distinction
>(<[email-masked]>; the quoted text in the
>beginning is from Siegfried Langenbach):
>
>| >  Making representatives ( elected boards ) responsible to those
>| >  who elected them is a fundamental issue IMO ( otherwise they are
>| >  not representatives in the words meaning ).
>|
>| In fact, they are not "representatives", and they cannot legally be
>| so. That is a crucial difference between a government and a
>| corporation; ICANN is a corporation, and its directors, by law, have
>| a fiduciary duty to the corporation and its purposes, and not to the
>| people who (s)elected them.  This is an absolutely fundamental
>| distinction.
>
>Second, I'd like to recommend
><http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?monopoly> to you:
>
>| Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- +
>| pOlein to sell
>|
>|
>| 1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply,
>| or concerted action
>| 2 : exclusive possession or control
>| 3 : a commodity controlled by one party
>| 4 : one that has a monopoly
>
>Third, you may wish to have a look at the California PUC's web
>pages, where their legal basis, their organization, and public
>representation in the process are at least roughly described.
>You'll note that ICANN looks vastly different.
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________________
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, 19 Apr 2001 11:08:01 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] (no subject)

All right this is a good compromise position.  I will refrain from my
negativity if this plan is implimented.  Having the existing Alt-Chair
take
up the very important role of establishing the rules and procedure for
the
Assembly is a worthy and safe goal.  Even if my perceived conflict of
interest were agreed by everyone, having Mr. Corliss work in this
capacity
should prevent the dangers of the conflict from causing an appearance of
illigitimacy.

I appreciate the fact that Mr. Younger is actually moving very quickly
in
his new position.  But I also appreciate the fact that NTIA and DOC and
several congressman are also moving very fast and being lobbied very
hard to
reassign the DoC contract for IANA services. We must move quickly to
establish our ligitimacy.

While it may seem distasteful to have all of this self criticism it is
essential that USG overseers view this openness and transparency and
recognize that we are moving quickly to remedy the failure to be
representative in policy decisions.

While censorship and list monitoring may seem a good salve to make the
list
more attractive it carries with it the extreme danger of thwarting our
efforts at bottoms up representation and openness and transparency. We
should try our chair's approach that if we have real focus in
mission(using
the WG-Review as an example) the abuses seem to curtail themselves.

Sincerely,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> To all.
> I suppose we could come back to a more sensible and therefore more
> acceptable approach of the issues at stake. If I may I would like to
> review some as they appear somewhat related.
>
> 1. Chairmanship
> IMHO the Chairs should not have an other agenda than to be the best
> servant of the ML. This was what Roberto and Harald roughly did.
>
> - this should not prevent them to participate to some threads, but it
>    would mostly be in helping new areas to be investigated or in
>    leading to consensus. So not to initiate new threats.
> - all our candidates - but the one who resigned - had an private
>    agenda.  We have to live with it. I note that the most active was
>    Eric and  the least was Patrick.
>
> 2. List Monitoring
> I made clear that complaints should be carried in the open through
> an automated system. Every position should be questionable -
> including Chair and List Monitor. But we have not that system yet.
>
> In the meanwhile I think it would be advisable that the Chair does
> not appoint the altChair as a List Monitor, in the best interest of both
> functions. Power separation is always the best. The best proof is
> that Patrick had immediately to publish a rule exception.
>
> 3. Call to the Order
> I wish to recall the Chairs that a good ML is first a well chaired
> one. For several days I have a motion pending, seconded, fully
> documented to have most of the discussions overloading this
> ML to be ported elsewhere with a clear agenda. This motion has
> not even been acknowledge by the Chair, and obviously not acted
> upon. Either by vote or by the creation of an ML.
>
> A second Motion by DPF with the same aim concerning a
> competing topic and other topics widely discussed has been
> seconded and documented. Not acknowledged.
>
> Instead of sending posts over posts asking to reduce the post
> number, abiding by the rules and making the posts to move
> another place seems a more reasonable way to attain a post
> reduction.
>
> 4. New Rules
> Our new Chairman explained he has been elected on a agenda
> which includes new rules to be set-up for this ML and the GA.
> He has explained that he has set-up a sub-list for that.
>
> I therefore call for:
> - that list to be Chaired by the alt-Chair as it is an important
>    issue where the Chair cannot commit himself
> - that list to be reminded to everyone until it gets its momentum
> - its works to be regularly (every week?) reported by a post of
>    its Chair to the GA.
>
> 5. Traffic
> When you have to rules natural life there is a problem. Auto-
> regulation has to be favored. I feel that the rule of 5 post is
> absurd. It can only serve in the case of someone keeping
> sending automated mails to the list.
>
> We have to find and adopt auto-regulation solutions, the most
> documented and accepted one being SIG MLs. Again: per topic
> ad Member initiative, one sub-ML, one link on the DNSO/GA
> page, position links on the sub-ML web site.
>
> 6. Conflicts of Interest
> Eric has a major point in saying that Patrick is in competition with
> iCANN. Actually iCANN has put itself in competition with quite all
> of us except those it pays or paid by its partners or future partners.
>
> This conflict does exist now with quite all the DNSO Members. The
> pretension of regulating the content through the TLD has now lead
> to the last conflict of interest (with NonCom at least) through the
> intended take over of ".org". Positions taken here concerning plan
> B shown that a lot of good reasons were at stake. Not to quote the
> IDNH/O issue.
>
> This question is fundamental to the DNSO/GA and to the future
> of the iCANN. However it should be very seriously investigated
> in a complete manner and not through Patrick's case:
>
> a) Patrick is on a non-profit Board (TLDA)
> b) among its targets TLDA aims at developing the iCANN in a
>      way iCANN should accept as conform to its bylaws
> c) several of the Members of this List are members of the TLDA
> d) Eric's assumption that non-legacy TLDs are out for money
>      is not necessarily true (I head non-profits associations for
>      TLDs totally compliant with the iCANN vision of new TLDs).
>      Also, the ccTLDs best practice and the gTLD contracts make
>      an obligation to legacy TLDs to look for money. There is not
>      anything equivalent at TLDA.
>
> I wish some reason prevails on this list. We all have many
> other things to do, starting with a better Internet. This list has
> no other interest that helping us to go that way.
>
> I thank all those sharing the same target to help us all to
> make it.
>
> Jefsey
>
> --
> 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 20:31:11 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Roberto: what is the iCANN

Dear Roberto,
and if the iCANN was exactly what it is: a non profit, no member technical 
support venture (corporation) taking over from the disengaging market 
leader. Questions are simple: what is transfered? is everything transfered 
to the taker? is the taker fit to the job? who else is on the market? what 
is the agenda of the transfer? what is the business plan?

The real problem is that iCANN just made itself competition to everyone it 
should cooperate with because instead of being a supporting organization it 
wants to be the ruling one. Again and again, this is a simple question of 
wording that French makes very clear. "gouvernance" is 'house keeping' not 
'estate governing'. If your house keeper directs your wife, your home is 
probably poorly kept. Whatever the legal status and the place of birth of 
your house keeper, and whatever the contract she works under.  Let KISS so 
we better understand.

Jefsey

On 18:23 19/04/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
>Thomas,
>
>I think that this is the real question we are trying to answer (with very 
>little success so far): what is ICANN and what should it be?
>- is it an (industry-driven) standardisation body?
>- is it a trade or professional society (self-regulation body)?
>- is it a (government-driven) regulatory body or agency?
>
>IMHO, the confusion is that it is a little bit of all.
>- as an industry-driven standardisation body it sets standards (criteria), 
>like adoption of UDRP
>- as a professional society it decides what are the criteria to get in 
>(Registrar and/or Registry accreditation, for instance)
>- as a regulatory body it tries to enforce the standards it has set as a 
>standardisation body
>
>The main problem is to figure out the legal framework in which it 
>operates, because depending on what point of view you take its legal 
>liability is different.
>Of course the jurisdiction is Califirnia, but what will be the parameters 
>of judgement if there will be a lawsuit? (being this show run in the US, 
>the correct question is not "if?" but "when?")
>
>IANAL, and therefore I have a very foggy idea on whether somebody that has 
>not been picked in the first run of TLDs has any chance to win a lawsuit, 
>and on what grounds. What is most scary is that there are chances that 
>he/she may win a lawsuit when the TLD is already operating with a 
>different Registry, with all the consequences you may think of.
>Or will USG, by endorsement of the choice of ICANN BoD, guarantee adequate 
>legal protection (but in that case, forget all self-regulatory industry 
>effort nonsense, ICANN is acting under strict authority of USG and Dave 
>Crocker is right, we are facing a US regulatory body, with some 
>"international" window-dressing).
>
>Regards
>Roberto
>
>
>
>>From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
>>To: [email-masked]
>>Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection
>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:31:24 +0200
>>
>>On 2001-04-18 15:15:25 -0700, Dave Crocker 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.
>>
>>First of all, the C in ICANN stands for corporation, not for
>>commission.  I'll quote Kent on that importance of that distinction
>>(<[email-masked]>; the quoted text in the
>>beginning is from Siegfried Langenbach):
>>
>>| >  Making representatives ( elected boards ) responsible to those
>>| >  who elected them is a fundamental issue IMO ( otherwise they are
>>| >  not representatives in the words meaning ).
>>|
>>| In fact, they are not "representatives", and they cannot legally be
>>| so. That is a crucial difference between a government and a
>>| corporation; ICANN is a corporation, and its directors, by law, have
>>| a fiduciary duty to the corporation and its purposes, and not to the
>>| people who (s)elected them.  This is an absolutely fundamental
>>| distinction.
>>
>>Second, I'd like to recommend
>><http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?monopoly> to you:
>>
>>| Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- +
>>|       pOlein to sell
>>|
>>|
>>| 1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply,
>>|       or concerted action
>>| 2 : exclusive possession or control
>>| 3 : a commodity controlled by one party
>>| 4 : one that has a monopoly
>>
>>Third, you may wish to have a look at the California PUC's web
>>pages, where their legal basis, their organization, and public
>>representation in the process are at least roughly described.
>>You'll note that ICANN looks vastly different.
>>
>>--
>>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
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #406
************************