Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #407
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, April 20 2001            Volume 01 : Number 407

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

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:02:43 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Vint Cerf Replies to (most of) Your Questions

On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:54:37 -0500, Bruce wrote:

>Vint Cerf Replies to (most of) Your Questions
>
>http://www.icannwatch.org/

Well done to Dr Cerf for responding.  It is very much appreciated.

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 16:03:34 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: ANNOUNCEMENT: Upcoming ICANN Meetings in Stockholm, Sweden

Alexander,

Thanks for the suggestion,

I agree that <http://www.icann.org/stockholm/> should mention the At Large
Study Committee's June 5 meeting.  I'll suggest this to someone at ICANN,
and I'm hopeful that they'll update the page promptly.

My own announcement was intended to be helpful both to potential in-person
attendees and to remote participants.  For the former, I too should have
mentioned the At Large session -- which I failed to think of since it wasn't
listed on the main ICANN site!

However, in response to a number of inquiries I've received on this subject,
note that the At Large Committee's omission from the listing of sessions to
be webcast is in fact intentional: The Committee apparently needs to meet on
June 5, and the Berkman Center's webcasting equipment and staff aren't
readily available on that date; furthermore, the June 5 meeting date
apparently may require holding the At Large Committee's sessions in a
different room or even at a separate location (if all suitable rooms in the
main meeting venue are booked on that day, presumably for INET events),
which would make a webcast all the more difficult due to the challenges of
moving equipment in short order, of getting the necessary infrastructure,
etc.  This strikes me as unfortunate, as I think it would be beneficial to
webcast the At Large Committee sessions, but at the moment I don't see any
easy way forward here.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 5:20 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: ANNOUNCEMENT: Upcoming ICANN Meetings in
> Stockholm, Sweden
>
>
>
> Hello Ben!
>
> Ben Edelman wrote on 19.04.01, 00:20:33:
> > Because you attended or participated remotely in one or more prior ICANN
> > meetings, ICANN would like to remind you of its upcoming
> meetings to be held
> > in Stockholm, Sweden on June 1 through 4.  More information about the
> > meetings is available at <http://www.icann.org/stockholm>.
>
> June 1 through >>5<<. It's a pity ICANN forgets to mention
> the At Large Study Committee outreach meeting in the
> schedule (http://www.icann.org/stockholm/). According to
> http://www.atlargestudy.org/case_studies_ann.shtml
> the ALSC meeting takes place on *Tuesday, June 5*. So those
> planning to go to Stockholm should consider staying one
> day longer (if they aren't around for the ISOC Conference
> INET 2001 anyway).
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
>   ICANN Channel              http://www.icannchannel.de
>
>

- --
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 23:01:39 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: What industry? Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, at 18:23 [=GMT+0200], Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> 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

This I find an eye opener: seeing the UDRP as such. My question would
then be: Which industry drives ICANN as a standardisation body?

[...]

[email-masked]
m@§.com (soon!)

- --
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 17:51:58 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reply to Danny

Well, that was extremely well laid out and I appreciate the work that
went into
it.  My "shouting" is due to the urgency of our situation. The
Congressman and
the DoC are being lobbied plenty hard to come up with an alternative. 
The most
important factor being looked at is legitimacy.  BoD and staff keep
pointing to
all of our imput but these guys on the hill are hearing a different tune
and it
rings truer.

Legitimacy is the reason for attacking Corliss and getting it all out in
the
open.  It also is the reason for the constant attacks on due process, or
should
I say lack thereof.

We don't have to stop everything in order to establish a good process
but we at least must do it simultaneously and very quickly.  Anything we
accomplish before this is done will lead to more questionable results
and give the NC and BoD reasons to ignore it.

Please establish one list for development, design and implimentation of
GA
rules.
Ethics,
voting,
list rules,
disqualifiers from office,
privacy versus transparency,
monitors,
secretariat function,
translation or not and when,
motions,
calls and requests.

I agree let us not be distracted by due process give it a list of it's
own.

Of course I will work with you to get this done.

Ultreya,

Danny Younger wrote:

> 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
- --
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: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:52:01 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reply to Danny

On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:51:58 -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:

It also is the reason for the constant attacks on due process, or
>should
>I say lack thereof.

This is very well but you lose credibility when you keep on and on
about something.  I mean this as constructive advice.

If I think something is wrong or process was unfair (like I did over
suspension of Mr Walsh) I will make my point, perhaps reply to a
couple of posts on it and then move on.

Likewise regarding the Verisign agreements.  I was aghast at the
process (as were the Names Council) but after the point had bene made
on this, I moved on to debating the substance of the agreements.

Yes process is important but we should make sure we do not tie
ourselves into knots over every thing we are unhappy with, at the cost
of blocking debate on other issues.

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 20:19:24 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Due Process

Mr. farrar,

Your last post was very nice and in a usual setting very correct.  But I
respectfully suggest that your method while polite and proper for
conversational arenas and academia and general social norms may be
correct, here it has not worked.

Your method sounds very intelligent and good advice for someone trying
to be congenial and get along.  I come from the business world and the
ecclesiastical world, and in both we must judge results.  If I sound
great but do not feed the hungry I have failed, if I look good but lose
money I have failed.  In short your method has failed, we still lack
procedural rules which will give our output credibility.

I do neither see nor hear anyone else ringing this bell. Neither do I
see nor hear anyone taking strong action to correct the most damaging
factor to ICANN's ligitimacy.  As I said this morning in response to Mr.
Morfin's post, if we take his recommended action, which the chair has
lead me to believe he supports, then and only then will I stop on this
harangue.

Yes I have an agenda; ligitimacy of ICANN through due process, outreach
& education and financial responsibility.  When these occur we will
begin to fulfill our responsibility to the internetstakeholders as a
whole.

Sincerely,

- --
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: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:09:40 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Internet Blocking and other concerns

Taking off my official hat for a moment, as a private citizen I will be
participating in the US nationwide protests tomorrow focused on the
Children's Internet Protection Act (CHIPA).  These protests have been
organized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in conjunction with
co-sponsors such as the Online  Policy Group and the American Civil
Liberties Union in order to demonstrate the widespread public opposition to
use of Internet blocking in schools and libraries.   It is my view that
Congressionally-mandated Internet blocking censors
Constitutionally-protected materials, and that US governmental intrusion
into the Internet policy arena is to be discouraged whenever possible.

I would hope that others in the General Assembly share my concerns, and that
these type of issues as well as the full gamut of concerns over privacy will
be discussed at some point soon in our forum.

- --
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 21:41:45 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Danged Revenuers

- --------------C305A6C61147BFCE7FDA1924
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thank you for these two great posts with great financial stats which we
should all be aware of.

Understanding where we spend is always a great step toward financial
responsibility.  Both of these links help a great deal in such an
endeavor.  Certainly though a man of your worldliness understands that
this is like looking at our checkbook to decide how to make money.

These are financials(72k for expenses???) and they tell the story of
where the money went.

What a revenue model entails is where the money comes from. Has anyone
seen one?  If you are mad as heck like myself about the lack of funds
for multilingualism, and are constantly told sorry no money, you say
then what are you doing for a living?

Charitable or not, and I have just been informed that ICANN has not
received a 501 (c) 3 or 6 status yet and therefor your tax write-offs
are no good, ccTLDs and non-coms, you have to have a financial profile
that shows where the money is coming from and why.

If we were granted membership (stockholder status) we would fire our CEO
and demand proper steps be taken to assure a revenue that will enable
that our agenda be fulfilled or we stop, am I right Carnegie Foundation
or Sierra Club or Red Cross?

Name one member of our board or our staff that has non-profit fund
raising experience!!!!

That is a joke.  "the american joke"

Sincerely,

Bruce James wrote:

>
>  http://www.icann.org/financials/
>  http://www.icann.org/financials/preliminary-budget-19feb01.htm#III
>   /Bruce

- --------------C305A6C61147BFCE7FDA1924
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Thank you for these two great posts with great financial stats which we
should all be aware of.
<p>Understanding where we spend is always a great step toward financial
responsibility.&nbsp; Both of these links help a great deal in such an
endeavor.&nbsp; Certainly though a man of your worldliness understands
that this is like looking at our checkbook to decide how to make money.
<p>These are financials(72k for expenses???) and they tell the story of
where the money went.
<p>What a revenue model entails is where the money comes from. Has anyone
seen one?&nbsp; If you are mad as heck like myself about the lack of funds
for multilingualism, and are constantly told sorry no money, you say then
what are you doing for a living?
<p>Charitable or not, and I have just been informed that ICANN has not
received a 501 (c) 3 or 6 status yet and therefor your tax write-offs are
no good, ccTLDs and non-coms, you have to have a financial profile that
shows where the money is coming from and why.
<p>If we were granted membership (stockholder status) we would fire our
CEO and demand proper steps be taken to assure a revenue that will enable
that our agenda be fulfilled or we stop, am I right Carnegie Foundation
or Sierra Club or Red Cross?
<p>Name one member of our board or our staff that has non-profit fund raising
experience!!!!
<p>That is a joke.&nbsp; "the american joke"
<p>Sincerely,
<p>Bruce James wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.icann.org/financials/">http://www.icann.org/financials/</a>
<br>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.icann.org/financials/preliminary-budget-19feb01.htm#III">http://www.icann.org/financials/preliminary-budget-19feb01.htm#III</a>
<br>&nbsp; <b><font face="Verdana"><font size=-1>/Bruce</font></font></b></blockquote>

</body>
</html>

- --------------C305A6C61147BFCE7FDA1924--

- --
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 22:25:07 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Internet Blocking and other concerns

As if this whole scene did not have enough problems of its own,
the inevitable soap box finally surfaces, inviting us to dive into yet
other new and murky waters.  Perhaps the problem is that of
writing: the ancient Greeks managed to form workable assemblies
before it was invented.

Bill Lovell

"babybows.com" wrote:

> Taking off my official hat for a moment, as a private citizen I will be
> participating in the US nationwide protests tomorrow focused on the
> Children's Internet Protection Act (CHIPA).  These protests have been
> organized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in conjunction with
> co-sponsors such as the Online  Policy Group and the American Civil
> Liberties Union in order to demonstrate the widespread public opposition to
> use of Internet blocking in schools and libraries.   It is my view that
> Congressionally-mandated Internet blocking censors
> Constitutionally-protected materials, and that US governmental intrusion
> into the Internet policy arena is to be discouraged whenever possible.
>
> I would hope that others in the General Assembly share my concerns, and that
> these type of issues as well as the full gamut of concerns over privacy will
> be discussed at some point soon in our forum.
>
> --
> 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 23:34:17 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Internet Blocking and other concerns

At 09:09 PM 4/19/2001, babybows.com wrote:
>I would hope that others in the General Assembly share my concerns, and that
>these type of issues as well as the full gamut of concerns over privacy will
>be discussed at some point soon in our forum.

ICANN has a very narrow scope of activities.  While there are SOME privacy 
related matters that are relevant to ICANN, they are FEW.

Please do NOT distract the ICANN GA from its intended focus on 
ICANN-related matters.

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: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 21:32:20 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Philippine Gov't Intervenes In .ph Internet Dispute  

Philippine Gov't Intervenes In .ph Internet Dispute
By Prudencia R Orani, Metropolitan Computer Times
MANILA, PHILIPPINES,
19 Apr 2001, 3:10 PM CST

http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/164717.html

The debate involving the Philippines' ".ph" country code top-level domain
(ccTLD) is now under the jurisdiction of the Department of Trade and Industry
(DTI), by virtue of both the E-Commerce Law and the Consumer Act.

This was announced yesterday by DTI Assistant Secretary Toby Monsod in the
face of the recent "controversial exchange" of allegations between parties
allied with DotPH Inc., the existing provider of the .ph ccTLD, and groups
criticizing it.

<more>

With thanks to David Goldstein of the Australian [DNS] mailing list.

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:31:51 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] On Privacy

I would like to thank Dave Crocker for reminding me to remain focused on
ICANN's very narrow scope of activities.  (I had thought that governmental
intrusion into areas that affected ICANN stakeholders, like the libraries in
the non-commercial constituency, was a subject open to discussion, in much
the same way as Department of Commerce preferential treatment of
Intellectual Property interests to the detriment of other constituencies
might be a valid topic of discussion, but I will defer to Dave's better
judgement on what constitutes an ICANN-related matter).   I will be glad to
rephrase my comment accordingly, and to express my personal interest in
those privacy matters that are specifically relevant to ICANN:

The Open Letter from Tucows pertaining to Registrant Privacy Protection
makes the following points:

- - A growing number of third parties continue to utilize the publicly
accessible
Whois databases as a source for sales leads
- - Industry leaders have stepped up their efforts to sell their Whois
database and
related market demographics
- - Registrant privacy does not appear to be a pending agenda item for any
relevant
policy bodies.

As the marketing of Bulk Whois data has emerged as a privacy issue, one may
want to begin by considering the current language in the registrar's
accreditation agreement which states:

"Unless and until ICANN adopts a different policy, Registrar shall permit
use of data it provides in response to queries for any lawful purposes
except to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail (spam);"

This should be compared with the new language in the Unsponsored TLD
Agreements and in the new Verisign Agreement:

"Unless and until ICANN establishes a different policy, Registry Operator
shall permit use of data it provides in response to queries for any lawful
purposes except to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission
by e-mail, **telephone, or facsimile** of mass unsolicited, commercial
advertising or solicitations to entities other than the data recipient's own
existing customers;"

It would appear that as a matter of "policy", ICANN has already deemed it
prudent to place further restrictions on the use of Bulk Whois data (no
telephone or fax solicitations).  While I personally support this
initiative, one has to wonder why the DNSO was not consulted with regard to
such policy considerations... but that is another matter entirely.

What Tucows has proposed (in part) is a modification of the language in the
Registrars Accredition Agreement that essentially mirrors the language in
the new Registry agreements:

"Unless and until ICANN adopts a different policy, Registrar shall permit
use of data it provides in response to queries for any lawful purposes
except to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited commercial advertising via e-mail or other means, or direct
solicitation via e-mail (spam) or other means;"

This is a step in the right direction, although it might be best for the
sake of uniformity to use the current registry language in the RAA.

Michael Froomkin has noted, "I agree that the Tucows proposal is a better,
albeit far from best, policy, compared to what we have. But I think we'd all
be better off if ICANN were to define the minimum amount of whois
information necessary for the techncial functioning of the internet -- which
I take to be a techncial contact and no more. ICANN should then require that
minimum and no more. Everything else is social policy and should be decided
by national authorities or their delegates (e.g. the EU in the case of
european registries)."

What should be the minimum amount of information in a WHOIS database?  This
will most likely become a subject of discussion in the Names Council WHOIS
committee, and is probably a matter that should be addressed in the GA as it
does touch upon legitimate privacy concerns and is implicated in the
commitment by Verisign to develop "a truly universal WHOIS service that
would function effectively across all Top Level Domains, not just the
.com/.net/.org registries operated by VeriSign" (quoting Stuart Lynn).

Our Registrars Constituency also has posted its concerns regarding the
amount and type of data to be held in a centralized WHOIS (although their
point of view does not reflect privacy concerns as much as it does
anti-competitive concerns):

"First, VeriSign should not be allowed to create a centralized database for
all three of its gTLDs, and use that to try to extend the term of the .com,
.net, or .org registry agreements.  Second, registrars are quite concerned
that VeriSign would have access to and hold all of the registrars' data.
This creates enormous competitive implications, which must be considered
with utmost seriousness.  Third, any change in the current Whois
architecture would entail potentially costly changes to registrars' systems.
Such costs must be part of the consideration in moving toward a centralized
registry.  In the interest of stability, we would recommend that the portion
of the $200 million fund that VeriSign has pledged toward the universal
Whois be used to offset administrative and programming costs that registrars
may incur to make the necessary transition."
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00023.doc

One might ask, is there perhaps another entity that could provide a
centralized WHOIS database other than Verisign?  If so, perhaps this might
alleviate the Registrars' concerns to some degree.

In any event, a decision will ultimately need to be made regarding which
data will be maintained for purposes of both WHOIS lookup and Bulk WHOIS
licensing.  The current requirement states:

"The data accessible shall consist of elements that are designated from time
to time according to an ICANN-adopted policy. Until ICANN otherwise
specifies by means of an ICANN-adopted policy, this data shall consist of
the following elements as contained in Registrar's database:

a. The name of the SLD being registered and the TLD for which registration
is being requested;
b. The IP addresses of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s)
for the SLD;
c. The corresponding names of those nameservers;
d. The identity of Registrar (which may be provided through Registrar's
website);
e. The original creation date of the registration;
f. The expiration date of the registration;
g. The name and postal address of the SLD holder;
h. The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and
(where available) fax number of the technical contact for the SLD; and
i. The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and
(where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the SLD.

Whatever decision is made, it will need to address the concerns of the
Intellectual Property constituency, the Registrars and Registries
constituencies, and the as-yet-still-not-established Individuals'
constituency (that has a number of valid privacy concerns).  As the General
Assembly is the only ICANN body that can currently represent (to some
degree) the interests of individuals, we have an obligation to make sure
that as an impacted party, individuals are well represented in ongoing
policy deliberations.

The GA, if it continues discussions on the privacy implications of WHOIS
usage, will need to reach out to all parties that have a stake in such
discussions, including members of the European community that have a very
different take on privacy than do most Americans.  The establishment of a
consensus policy requires us to document our outreach process... but I will
admit to not being sure that we actually have an outreach process in place.
Perhaps this is another matter to consider...

Finally, one will eventually need to ask, while curtailing the marketing
efforts of others, does the Registrar community in fact have proprietary
rights to the data they collect, or does an individual's right to privacy
imply that these domain name holders are not to be contacted with regard to
the possible purchase of ancillary services by the Registrars themselves and
their affiliates?  The Tucows proposal only concerns itself with the sale of
Bulk WHOIS data to third parties, noting "The only exception would be those
parties with whom they originally contracted for service, who would not be
able to resell this information."

- --
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: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:32:36 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns

Seconded.

On 08:34 20/04/01, Dave Crocker said:
>At 09:09 PM 4/19/2001, babybows.com wrote:
>>I would hope that others in the General Assembly share my concerns, and that
>>these type of issues as well as the full gamut of concerns over privacy will
>>be discussed at some point soon in our forum.
>ICANN has a very narrow scope of activities.  While there are SOME privacy 
>related matters that are relevant to ICANN, they are FEW.
>Please do NOT distract the ICANN GA from its intended focus on 
>ICANN-related matters.
>d/

Dear Chair,

However probably laudable this civic concern of yours is purely American 
and ignored by the non-US members of this GA.

I wish to underline that we still miss two mails from the Chair[s]: 1) 
"motion by Jefsey Morfin, seconded, is acknowldeged by the Chair",  2) 
"motion by David P. Farrar, seconded, is acknowledged by the Chair".

These two seconded motions are precise and in some aspect conflicting: this 
has to be addressed. The good intent mails you sent are appreciated but 
they explain your personnal intent to address in your own way [that BTW I 
strongly object the call to the NC] the points risen by these motions. This 
is not what is expected from you, or at least at this stage. The same way 
that when the Staff starts negotiating with VeriSign and comes back with a 
last minute agreement, this is not what is expected from them.

What is expected is simple and common:
- - a motion is proposed
- - the motion is seconded
- - the motion is acknowledged
- - the motion may be opposed
- - if it not opposed it is deemed accepted
- - if it is opposed it is made to a vote
- - if the vote is in favor of the motion, the motion is accepted
- - once accepted the motion is acted upon and the way it is carried out is 
subject to ML consensus or debate.

Am I mistaken? Is there any objection to that?

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: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 06:40:02 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Agenda/financial

Allow me to correct an earlier post.  I indicated that ICANN had not
received taqx exempt status from the IRS.  This was wrong. They have not
received permanent status or a status based upon operation, but only one
based upon projections.

ate: AUG 28 2000

    Internet Corporation for Assigned
    Names and Numbers
    4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
    Marina Del Rey, CA 90292

Employer Identification Number:

95-4712218

Issuing Specialist:

Edwin Brown ID # 50-00868

Toll Free Customer Service Number:

(877) 829-5500

Accounting Period Ending:

June 30

Foundation Status Classification:

509(a)(2)

Advance Ruling Period Begins:

September 30, 1998

Advance Ruling Period Ends:

June 30, 2003

Form 990 Required:

Yes

    Dear Applicant:

    Based on the information supplied, and assuming your operations will
be as stated in your application for recognition of exemption, we
    have determined you are exempt from federal income tax under section
501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as an organization
    described in section 501(c)(3).

    Because you are a newly created organization, we are not now making
a final determination of your foundation status under section
    509(a) of the Code. However, we have determined that you can
reasonably be expected to be a publicly supported organization
    described in the section(s) indicated above. Accordingly, you will
be treated as a publicly supported organization, and not as a private
    foundation, during an advance ruling period. This advance ruling
period begins and ends on the dates indicated above.

So now we have another area where we need to be mindful of the great
"public".  I would ask Mr. De Banc's and anyone from the non-coms if
they believe that this means ICANN should be supported by public
donations and not fee charges.

Now perhaps we should form some way of helping ICANN develope a revenue
model which complies with the 501 status which they currently enjoy.
For some reason I do not believe fee for services is a good way to go.

Also can someone explain why ICANN does not have just tons of grant and
endowment money being poured into their coffers. (how about we sell the
rights to this list for a miniseries)

Sincerely,

- --
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 #407
************************