Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #413
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, April 22 2001            Volume 01 : Number 413

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

Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 10:16:12 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Competitive Roots  [was Additional Mailing Lists]

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Can't agree, honestly.  First it's an issue with New.net's drive to expand its
> operations.

new.net relies on partnerships that may or may not have staying power over the
long term.  They are primarily reliant upon ancillary services for the resolution
of their "rootzone" (for lack of a better characterization).  Assuming that @Home
(and/or the rest) of New.net's partners do not go under, get bought out, or are
otherwise disinclined to continue their relationship, New.net goes nowhere.  Now,
I'm not saying New.net is not going to last... but the truth is, New.net is not
intrinsically wedded to the worldwide DNS infrastructure.

> Secondly, many people will keep bringing it up if .biz gets
> approved and operational.

The upcoming .BIZ registry is ICANN-approved and constitutes an attempt to
alleviate a perceived name space shortage.  When (and *if*, big if) this TLD
becomes operational, there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss its impact.
Now may not be the best time, and that's really all I'm saying..

> Thirdly, there is going to have to be a debate
> about MultiBind.

This will happen at some point, I'm sure.  However, I believe this is a technical
issue which falls outside the purview of the policy-oriented DNSO (but, I could be
wrong).

> Fourthly, we need to consider multilinguals but this is a
> diversion for many, if not most, on the main mailing list.

I think there is still much unsettled business in the English/Roman character
based DNS...

> Finally I don't
> see why we ought not to discuss the competition - Pepsi does !!

Pepsi and Coke discuss each other only to the extent that they are looking for
weak points to exploit to their respective advantages, and not for reasons of
sharing their markets.

> The whole issue really needs to be shunted off to a separate mailing list
> somewhere.  Otherwise it will keep coming back to haunt the main list.

No doubt.  But at this point, I think the best way to deal with it is to avoid the
topic as much as possible, as it is not on the Stockholm agenda (again, I may be
wrong).

> I know I have an interest in this topic but that's just good common sense.

This does not affect my opinion of you or your work on this ML.  I sincerely hope
we can make the best of whatever opportunities for discussion we do finally agree
upon.

Amiably,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:25:00 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN  Conflicts of Interest Policy

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0CB0E.1AAD0060
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

What part of this needs to be changed?

 http://www.icann.org/committees/coi/coi-policy-04mar99.htm

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0CB0E.1AAD0060
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>What part of this needs to be =

changed?</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><BR>&nbsp;<A=20
href=3D"http://www.icann.org/committees/coi/coi-policy-04mar99.htm">http:=
//www.icann.org/committees/coi/coi-policy-04mar99.htm</A></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>/Bruce</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana=20
size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0CB0E.1AAD0060--

- --
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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:27:43 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN  Independent Review Policy

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C0CB0E.7BA58680
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

What part of this needs to be changed?

 http://www.icann.org/committees/indreview/policy.htm

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C0CB0E.7BA58680
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>What part of this needs to be =

changed?</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><BR>&nbsp;<A=20
href=3D"http://www.icann.org/committees/indreview/policy.htm">http://www.=
icann.org/committees/indreview/policy.htm</A></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>/Bruce</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana=20
size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C0CB0E.7BA58680--

- --
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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 10:31:20 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Competitive Roots (correction)

I wrote:

"new.net relies on partnerships that may or may not have staying power
over the
long term.  They are primarily reliant upon ancillary services for the
resolution
of their "rootzone" (for lack of a better characterization).  Assuming
that @Home
(and/or the rest) of New.net's partners do not go under, get bought out,
or are
otherwise disinclined to continue their relationship, New.net goes
nowhere.  Now,
I'm not saying New.net is not going to last... but the truth is, New.net
is not
intrinsically wedded to the worldwide DNS infrastructure." 

should read: 

Assuming it happens that @Home (and/or the rest) of New.net's partners
go under, get bought out, or are otherwise disinclined to continue their
relationship, New.net goes nowhere.

Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
- --
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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 07:36:30 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Competitive Roots  [was Additional Mailing Lists]

GA Members;

Do we have a consensus that these roots are in competition with ICANN?

If they are then we should have one course of action, as in competition strategy.

If they are not then we have another course of action, inclusion and cooperation.

I also suggest that if it is competition then .biz is a non-issue, why would we
care about competitors rights, and if that is the case, we should unleash a slew
of gTLDs that compete with every other competing root.

(someone please tell us that competition is not what it is)

Sincerely,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Sotiris
>
> > With all due respect, Patrick, I think it would be wise to leave aside the
> > topic of competitive roots.  This, because  the competitive roots topic
> > is really not an ICANN relevant topic; the ICANN intransigence on
> > competitive roots is firmly entrenched and IMHO it will take a miracle
> > to get the BoD to even comment on altroots.  After all, competitive roots
> > are just that: competition.
>
> Can't agree, honestly.  First it's an issue with New.net's drive to expand its
> operations.  Secondly, many people will keep bringing it up if .biz gets
> approved and operational.  Thirdly, there is going to have to be a debate
> about MultiBind.  Fourthly, we need to consider multilinguals but this is a
> diversion for many, if not most, on the main mailing list.    Finally I don't
> see why we ought not to discuss the competition - Pepsi does !!
>
> The whole issue really needs to be shunted off to a separate mailing list
> somewhere.  Otherwise it will keep coming back to haunt the main list.
>
> I know I have an interest in this topic but that's just good common sense.
>
> Best 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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 10:18:14 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Agenda/financial

Dave:
    FYI...:)

    At this point ICANN does not even meet the (33%) requirements!

/Bruce
"Let us reason together."

(post 4)
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 08:40
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

- --
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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:03:06 -0400
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to Establish FIVE New Working Groups

At 20:17 22.04.2001 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>(2) Internal Processes: To consider, build and enhance the General Assembly's
>internal control processes including, but not limited to, its accountability
>structures, electoral procedures, debating processes, mailing list rules and
>system of management.

I support the creation of this mailing list.
In my personal opinion, the notion of motion is undefined until there is a 
coherent rule set for what it means and what the result is - but I support 
the creation of this mailing list.

- --
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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:13:45 -0400
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Additional Mailing Lists

At 06:49 22.04.2001 -0400, babybows.com wrote:
>Hi Patrick,
>
>Please keep in mind my comment, "This proposed collection of lists will
>further be discussed by the General Assembly in the course of the next few
>days".  The lists that I proposed are only a suggestion, and I am expecting
>the GA to make up its own mind regarding the way forward with regard to
>these mailing lists.   You will note that many of the proposed lists reflect
>the recommendations (motions) already put forward by the membership.

One note - I think it natural that the rules for monitoring of the new 
mailing lists should be the same as for the GA list (decorum, chair can ask 
for posting limit, list monitor team and suspensions).
I also think it natural that the lists have the same monitors as the main 
list (although not all monitors will be on all lists, one could ask for at 
least 2 of them to be on each), but that suspensions are per list, not for 
all the GA lists.

But I'm biased. Other thoughts?

>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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:30:50 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists

Just an additional thought on "numbers" of mailing lists. Right now, I think
that those who are actively engaged are a rather finite number of folks in
the GA. Hopefully, this will help to garner additional postings from
different folks.  

But, in the interests of starting with a number we know we can "populate"
and draw work to, how about settling on the smaller number of five, with the
agreement that more can be added, as they are needed, or if the topics don't
"fit" in the original five?

I'm very much in support, as you all know, though, of trying to get
"organized" into topical areas, since I hope that will help the GA members
(including myself) who are active to stay on topic and have a more
productive experience in the contributions they make.
I think that further comments might focus on aligning the topics into
different "groups", and that might also be the way to determine how many are
needed to start...

Regards, Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 6:17 AM
To: Danny Younger
Cc: Elisabeth Porteneuve; Philip Sheppard; [GA]
Subject: Re: [ga] Additional Mailing Lists

On Sunday, April 22, 2001 8:32 AM (AEST), Danny Younger wrote:

> Having reviewed the requests of the members of the General Assembly,
> please note our expectation to establish the following lists:
>
> a. Rules and Procedures of the General Assembly [rules]
> b. Participation, Website, Outreach and Education [outreach]
> c. Finance & Funding Support [funding]
> d. Ongoing DNSO Review [review]
> e. Individuals Constituency [ic]
> f. Alternate Roots [roots]
> g. UDRP & WIPO Recommendations [udrp]
> h. Privacy & WHOIS [whois]

Hi Danny

I am sure you will find that eight mailing lists will be too many to handle.
It may be that (d) will overlap with some of the others.  You will also
agree
that some of these mailing lists represent a short-term objective after
which
they will be abandoned in favour of new mailing lists.

Rather that set up temporary mailing lists, for a limited time, I would
suggest that we consider stable, long-term mailing lists to which a
discussion "reference" can be made as appropriate.

Consensus, which includes the constituency structure, defines the GA's
"external" relationships both with the public and with the ICANN Board.
This
compares with "internal" processes.  As both include aspects of
accountability
this does not need separate treatment.   There are, therefore, *five*
separate
categorisations as follows:

EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS
    ICANN Directors & Accountability
    Names Council & other SOs
    Outreach & Constituencies
    Website & Communication

INTERNAL PROCESSES
    Accountability
    Electoral Procedures
    List Rules & Protocols
    Mailing List Management

REGISTRATION (i.e. existing systems)
    Registrant/Whois Privacy
    Registrar Accreditation, QA
    Registry-Registrar Separation
    Verisign Agreement (incl. .org)

COMPETITIVE ROOTS
    Alternate Root Systems (Colliders)
    Multilingual DNS

TRADE MARKS-IP
    Dispute Resolution
    WIPO-2

Best 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
- --
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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 08:47:50 -0700
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Competitive Roots  [was Additional Mailing Lists]

Patrick Corliss writes:
 > Can't agree, honestly.  First it's an issue with New.net's drive to
 > expand its operations.

Why does the GA need to waste time discussing issues involved with a
commercial entity's business plan?  It has absolutely no bearing on
anything in the GA charter.

 > Secondly, many people will keep bringing it
 > up if .biz gets approved and operational.

Use the mailing list rules to prevent off-topic discussion.

 > Thirdly, there is going to
 > have to be a debate about MultiBind.

Why?  What is there to debate about MultiBind?  It is a piece of
software that people either run or do not run?  Where in the GA charter
does this come into play?  Again, off-topic.

 > Fourthly, we need to consider
 > multilinguals but this is a diversion for many, if not most, on the
 > main mailing list.

Why?  This is a *technical* issue which the IETF is dealing with.  This
is not a political issue and does not concern the GA.  Off-topic.

 > Finally I don't see why we ought not to discuss
 > the competition - Pepsi does !!

Competition with the GA?

 > The whole issue really needs to be shunted off to a separate mailing
 > list somewhere.  Otherwise it will keep coming back to haunt the main
 > list.

Off-topic discussions are prohibited by the GA list rules.  Enforce the
rules.

 > I know I have an interest in this topic but that's just good common
 > sense.

You seem to have a conflict of interest in this issue.  Just because you
want to talk about it does not make it any more germaine.

/Joe

- --
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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:44:58 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  Additional Mailing Lists

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 5:22 AM

> (4)    [ga-rts]     Competitive Roots  (alts & multilinguals)

I would like to see alts and multilinguals separated. They are NOT the same
issues and each may disrupt discussion of the other.
- --
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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:50:22 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Competitive Roots (correction)

> From: Sotiris [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 7:31 AM

> Assuming it happens that @Home (and/or the rest) of New.net's partners
> go under, get bought out, or are otherwise disinclined to 
> continue their
> relationship, New.net goes nowhere.

Are you aware of whom owns @home? They're not going away anytime 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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:54:07 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Additional Mailing Lists

I disagree with you Sotiris,

I think all the different Root services must begin to communicate 
now.  Many of them are already effectively communicating, our 
representatives are not participating and WE, the members of the group who 
are supposed to have a voice are screaming that many of us want our 
representatives to at the very least attempt to negotiate with all existing 
Root Administrators/Owners.  We have also communicated repetitively that we 
do not want the USG to create duplicate entries in the Master List for all 
Roots.  Some of our representatives have heard us and yet they are deaf to 
our pleas - we have a way to make them understand how important our 
Internet is to us and that we don't care for it to be segregated.

Thanks,

:)

~k

At 09:24 AM 4/22/2001 -0400, Sotiris wrote:
>With all due respect, Patrick, I think it would be wise to leave aside the 
>topic
>of competitive roots.  This, because  the competitive roots topic is 
>really not an
>ICANN relevant topic; the ICANN intransigence on competitive roots is firmly
>entrenched and IMHO it will take a miracle to get the BoD to even comment on
>altroots.  Afetr all, competitive roots are just that: competition.  As 
>far as I
>can see, the competitive root topic is a dead end at this point, one which 
>will
>waste much time and produce absolutely nothing substantive.  We all saw 
>how that
>discussion went recently on this ML, why let it happen again?  I think we 
>should
>stick to ICANN-related matters at this juncture.
>
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
>
>Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, April 22, 2001 8:49 PM (AEST), Danny Younger wrote:
> > Subject: [ga] Re: Additional Mailing Lists
> >
> > > Hi Patrick,
> > >
> > > Please keep in mind my comment, "This proposed collection of lists will
> > > further be discussed by the General Assembly in the course of the 
> next few
> > > days".  The lists that I proposed are only a suggestion, and I am 
> expecting
> > > the GA to make up its own mind regarding the way forward with regard to
> > > these mailing lists.   You will note that many of the proposed lists 
> reflect
> > > the recommendations (motions) already put forward by the membership.
> >
> > Thank you, Danny.
> >
> > Perhaps the GA membership will consider whether they prefer five:
> >
> > (1)    [ga-ext]    External Relationships  (constituencies et al)
> > (2)    [ga-int]     Internal Processes  (list rules, elections etc.)
> > (3)    [ga-reg]    Registration  (whois, existing systems)
> > (4)    [ga-rts]     Competitive Roots  (alts & multilinguals)
> > (5)    [ga-tip]     Trademarks & IP  (UDRP & WIPO-2)
> >
> > eight:
> >
> > > a. Rules and Procedures of the General Assembly [rules]
> > > b. Participation, Website, Outreach and Education [outreach]
> > > c. Finance & Funding Support [funding]
> > > d. Ongoing DNSO Review [review]
> > > e. Individuals Constituency [ic]
> > > f. Alternate Roots [roots]
> > > g. UDRP & WIPO Recommendations [udrp]
> > > h. Privacy & WHOIS [whois]
> >
> > or some other model.
> >
> > As I understand it we are not just talking mailing lists but the whole 
> Working
> > Group set up including Chairs and secretarial support.
> >
> > Best 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
>
>--
>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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 12:04:13 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Competitive Roots  [was Additional Mailing Lists]

I don't believe ICANN should be in competition with anyone other than 
another group who wants to provide technical coordination services for the 
USG Root servers, etc.

:)

~k

At 07:36 AM 4/22/2001 -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:
>GA Members;
>
>Do we have a consensus that these roots are in competition with ICANN?
>
>If they are then we should have one course of action, as in competition 
>strategy.
>
>If they are not then we have another course of action, inclusion and 
>cooperation.
>
>I also suggest that if it is competition then .biz is a non-issue, why 
>would we
>care about competitors rights, and if that is the case, we should unleash 
>a slew
>of gTLDs that compete with every other competing root.
>
>(someone please tell us that competition is not what it is)
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>
>Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > Hi Sotiris
> >
> > > With all due respect, Patrick, I think it would be wise to leave 
> aside the
> > > topic of competitive roots.  This, because  the competitive roots topic
> > > is really not an ICANN relevant topic; the ICANN intransigence on
> > > competitive roots is firmly entrenched and IMHO it will take a miracle
> > > to get the BoD to even comment on altroots.  After all, competitive roots
> > > are just that: competition.
> >
> > Can't agree, honestly.  First it's an issue with New.net's drive to 
> expand its
> > operations.  Secondly, many people will keep bringing it up if .biz gets
> > approved and operational.  Thirdly, there is going to have to be a debate
> > about MultiBind.  Fourthly, we need to consider multilinguals but this is a
> > diversion for many, if not most, on the main mailing list.    Finally I 
> don't
> > see why we ought not to discuss the competition - Pepsi does !!
> >
> > The whole issue really needs to be shunted off to a separate mailing list
> > somewhere.  Otherwise it will keep coming back to haunt the main list.
> >
> > I know I have an interest in this topic but that's just good common sense.
> >
> > Best 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

- --
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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 10:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Additional Mailing Lists

On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> One note - I think it natural that the rules for monitoring of the new
> mailing lists should be the same as for the GA list (decorum, chair can ask
> for posting limit, list monitor team and suspensions).
> I also think it natural that the lists have the same monitors as the main
> list (although not all monitors will be on all lists, one could ask for at
> least 2 of them to be on each), but that suspensions are per list, not for
> all the GA lists.
>
> But I'm biased. Other thoughts?

While I agree with *objective* "civil discourse" rules, I find that
stifiling participation via posting limits is counterproductive to the
very purpose of discussion lists.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 12:21:41 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns

At 5:53 pm -0700 4/21/01, Kent Crispin wrote:

>Motion 1: I move that the GA form a WG to examine the finances of each
>of the directors, and to recommend the removal of all directors with any
>conflicts of interest.

Seconded

>Motion 2: I move that the GA form a WG to examine the desirablitiy of
>turning ICANN into a for-profit corporation.

Seconded

>Motion 3: I move that the GA petition the NC for the immediate adoption
>of the GA as a constituency.

Seconded

>Motion 5: I move that the GA forward a resolution to the NC calling for
>the immediate suspension of the UDRP.

Seconded

This'll be fun.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 16:02:21 -0400
From: "LDG" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Additional Mailing Lists

Sotiris,

If ICANN does not "deal with" the existence of the other roots and TLDs, 
the problems that arise as a result will be numerous and counter 
productive to the Internet.  It is precisely for this reason that it is entirely 
proper for the GA to address it.  Playing ostrich will not make it go 
away.

I realize that you are considering only the roots, and of those, only the 
ones that have been listed thus far.  Have you considered the countries 
who are launching roots because of dissatisfaction with ICANN - China, 
for example?  If you think it will end there, you are wrong.  Any entity 
using the DNS must be noticed by ICANN and the topic is very relevant 
to the GA.

Leah

On 22 Apr 2001, at 9:24, Sotiris wrote:

> With all due respect, Patrick, I think it would be wise to leave aside the topic
> of competitive roots.  This, because  the competitive roots topic is really not an
> ICANN relevant topic; the ICANN intransigence on competitive roots is firmly
> entrenched and IMHO it will take a miracle to get the BoD to even comment on
> altroots.  Afetr all, competitive roots are just that: competition.  As far as I
> can see, the competitive root topic is a dead end at this point, one which will
> waste much time and produce absolutely nothing substantive.  We all saw how that
> discussion went recently on this ML, why let it happen again?  I think we should
> stick to ICANN-related matters at this juncture.
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> 
> 
> Patrick Corliss wrote:
> 
> > On Sunday, April 22, 2001 8:49 PM (AEST), Danny Younger wrote:
> > Subject: [ga] Re: Additional Mailing Lists
> >
> > > Hi Patrick,
> > >
> > > Please keep in mind my comment, "This proposed collection of lists will
> > > further be discussed by the General Assembly in the course of the next few
> > > days".  The lists that I proposed are only a suggestion, and I am expecting
> > > the GA to make up its own mind regarding the way forward with regard to
> > > these mailing lists.   You will note that many of the proposed lists reflect
> > > the recommendations (motions) already put forward by the membership.
> >
> > Thank you, Danny.
> >
> > Perhaps the GA membership will consider whether they prefer five:
> >
> > (1)    [ga-ext]    External Relationships  (constituencies et al)
> > (2)    [ga-int]     Internal Processes  (list rules, elections etc.)
> > (3)    [ga-reg]    Registration  (whois, existing systems)
> > (4)    [ga-rts]     Competitive Roots  (alts & multilinguals)
> > (5)    [ga-tip]     Trademarks & IP  (UDRP & WIPO-2)
> >
> > eight:
> >
> > > a. Rules and Procedures of the General Assembly [rules]
> > > b. Participation, Website, Outreach and Education [outreach]
> > > c. Finance & Funding Support [funding]
> > > d. Ongoing DNSO Review [review]
> > > e. Individuals Constituency [ic]
> > > f. Alternate Roots [roots]
> > > g. UDRP & WIPO Recommendations [udrp]
> > > h. Privacy & WHOIS [whois]
> >
> > or some other model.
> >
> > As I understand it we are not just talking mailing lists but the whole Working
> > Group set up including Chairs and secretarial support.
> >
> > Best 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
> 
> --
> 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
> 

Leah Gallegos
AtlanticRoot Network, Inc. http://www.biztld.net
The DotBIZ tld Registry - the REAL one.  Stop ICANN
from duplicating the .BIZ tld in their root and fracturing
the Internet! 
ALSO, visit http://www.TLDlobby.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #413
************************