Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #416
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, April 23 2001            Volume 01 : Number 416

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

Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:32:08 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] On Motions

On 12:27 22/04/01, babybows.com said:
>First you bring in more members, then you work, then you motion, then you
>vote.    If you have good recommendations, suggestions, you do not need a
>motion to put them forth.

IMHO that wording and conceptions are inapproriate to the management of the
DNSO/GA ML. In order to help our Chairs to be advised on the best way to
proceed on his difficult matter:

"
I motion that the WG-Review initiated Center of Interest ML on consensus
uncovering,  ML management methods, net-democracy, transparency, etc...
is activated.with the purpose of presenting iCANN wide propositions.
"

Jefsey

PS I also propose that those interested in joining or monitoring that list 
let it
know to the GA, so we may jointly better asses the maturation of this idea.

- --
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 07:05:54 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Alternative roots

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0CBC3.D677A380
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The NC has the Alt. Roots on its agenda:

5. Alternative roots (Philip Sheppard) 20  mins.

I would suggest that the GA form an opinion *soon* to advise the NC of our
feelings.

/Bruce
"Let us reason together."

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0CBC3.D677A380
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>The NC has the Alt. Roots on =
its=20
agenda:&nbsp;</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana>5. Alternative roots (Philip Sheppard) =
20&nbsp;=20
mins.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>I would suggest that =
the GA form an=20
opinion *soon* to advise the NC of our feelings.</FONT></STRONG>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana =
size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></FONT>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>/Bruce<BR>"Let us reason =
together."=20
<BR></FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana=20
size=3D2>&nbsp;</DIV></FONT></STRONG></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0CBC3.D677A380--

- --
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:01:47 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .ie Seeks to Organize Irish Bid to Run .eu

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0CBD4.070BE820
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

.ie Seeks to Organize Irish Bid to Run .eu

http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=119&mode=thread&order=0

The European Parliament and the Council of Ministers are due to consider and
vote on a concrete proposal for an .eu domain registry within the next two
months. If approved, the European Commission will invite tenders to operate
the central registry."
"However, if any objections are raised or amendments requested by political
parties when the proposal is debated in the European Parliament next month,
this could delay approval by up to 18 months."

I think that ICANN should assign dot.EU to the European Commission and let
it decide who will run it.....IMHO

/Bruce
"Let us reason together."

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0CBD4.070BE820
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>.ie Seeks to =
Organize Irish=20
Bid to Run .eu</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/article.php?sid=3D119&amp;mode=3Dthread=
&amp;order=3D0">http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=3D119&amp;mode=3D=
thread&amp;order=3D0</A></FONT></FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>The European Parliament and the =
Council of=20
Ministers are due to consider and vote on a concrete proposal for an .eu =
domain=20
registry within the next two months. If approved, the European =
Commission will=20
invite tenders to operate the central registry."=20
<P><STRONG>"However, if any objections are raised or amendments =
requested by=20
political parties when the proposal is debated in the European =
Parliament next=20
month, this could delay approval by up to 18 months."</STRONG>
<P><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;
<P><STRONG>I think that ICANN should assign dot.EU to the European =
Commission=20
and let it decide who will run it.....IMHO</STRONG></P></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><BR></STRONG></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>/Bruce<BR>"Let us reason =
together."=20
</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></FONT></STRONG></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0CBD4.070BE820--

- --
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 12:05:21 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] some New.net news

All,

here's the latest:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-5695487.html?tag=mn_hd

Best 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: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:06:31 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Rules for new lists -- needed or not?

Let us let the lists run themselves it is far more bottoms-up, and the method
currently used by list monitors will be changed somewhat anyhow. We do not need
centralized control. We need focus and transparency and freedom of thought. Even
if some do not like it, myself included sometimes;>)
Specific direction on a list seems to reslove list problems as it did in the
WG-Review.

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

> As I recall, there were no rules established for Working Group E, nor were
> there really any problems with decorum.  That could probably be explained by
> the fact that WG E did not involve a controversial topic, but rather one
> that not a lot of people were interested in (Global Awareness and Outreach).
> The experience of WG E is therefore not very useful in this discussion.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: babybows.com [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 9:12 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Rules for new lists -- needed or not?
>
> Questions for those of you that participated in working groups A,B,C,D,E,
> and Review...
>
> Did your working groups have formal rules?  If not, were there many
> instances of decorum problems?   Did you manage to get the work done without
> recourse to an abuse resolution process?  We need to determine what rules,
> if any, should govern these lists.  Perhaps past experience can guide us.
>
> --
> 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

- --
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:44:26 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Alternative roots

At 07:05 AM 4/23/2001 -0500, Bruce James wrote:
>The NC has the Alt. Roots on its agenda:
>
>5. Alternative roots (Philip Sheppard) 20  mins.
>I would suggest that the GA form an opinion *soon* to advise the NC of our 
>feelings.
>
>
>/Bruce
>"Let us reason together."
>

Yes, we need to discover those ideas we agree on and the ideas we disagree 
on.  Discussion of this topic may feel old and tired; but until we've 
achieved our goal - we've got to keep trying!

1)  We do not want to introduce new TLDs into the USG Root that are already 
in use by other Roots.

Avoiding collisions is easy, repairing damage due to collisions is unknown 
and expected to be irreversible & may cause those USG Root servers to be 
unavailable for a few days/weeks in addition to other concerns, like the 
other folks networks that got confused and upset (their ability to do 
business has been intentionally attacked by the ICANN and in the USA at 
least, we are guaranteed the right to do business).  I'm sure everyone has 
had amply opportunity to discover the results of colliding TLDs -- if not, 
please ask Leah or someone more literate to explain it to you...

2)  We do want the USG Root service to create a process for communicating 
and collaborating with the other Root services.

2a) The TLDA seems like the natural choice - they are already making 
progress in this arena - the ICANN should join the TLDA.

I would take it one step further and say the ICANN should work with all 
other Root Services; but understand not everyone agrees with me...

...

- --
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:16:00 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ie Seeks to Organize Irish Bid to Run .eu

> Bruce James wrote:

> I think that ICANN should assign dot.EU to the European Commission and let it decide
> who will run it.....IMHO
 
If that were a motion, I'd second it. However, it doesn't seem to be, so I'll
propose my own:

 ICANN should immediately inform the European Commission that .eu will be created
 at their request, and instruct Verisign to make preparations to have it running
 within two working days of receipt of such a request.

 The letter informing them of this should specify (possibly by reference to
 existing documents) what name server and other information must be provided and
 what administrative procedures will be required to authenticate the request.

 Any charges involved should be no more than a reasonable administration fee.

Do I have a second? Debate?

I see no reason and admin fee should be more than about $100, 50 bucks each for
clerical work at ICANN and an hour's system admin time at Verisign. I wouldn't
argue if someone with better knowledge than mine of ICANN and Verisgn systems
said $1000 was justified, though.

Nor do I see any reason this needs much discussion. The domain makes sense
and the organisation seems quite likely to be competent to administer it.
- --
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 12:31:10 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ie Seeks to Organize Irish Bid to Run .eu

Sandy:

You have a great start, but I hate to limit the ICANN BoD. This new ccTLD
should pay the same fees to ICANN that the other ccTLDs pay. I am not too
sure VRSN should be the back office, but it could be.

IMHO.....:)

/Bruce
"Let us reason together."

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy Harris" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[GA]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 12:16
Subject: Re: [ga] .ie Seeks to Organize Irish Bid to Run .eu

> Bruce James wrote:

> I think that ICANN should assign dot.EU to the European Commission and let
it decide
> who will run it.....IMHO

If that were a motion, I'd second it. However, it doesn't seem to be, so
I'll
propose my own:

 ICANN should immediately inform the European Commission that .eu will be
created
 at their request, and instruct Verisign to make preparations to have it
running
 within two working days of receipt of such a request.

 The letter informing them of this should specify (possibly by reference to
 existing documents) what name server and other information must be provided
and
 what administrative procedures will be required to authenticate the
request.

 Any charges involved should be no more than a reasonable administration
fee.

Do I have a second? Debate?

I see no reason and admin fee should be more than about $100, 50 bucks each
for
clerical work at ICANN and an hour's system admin time at Verisign. I
wouldn't
argue if someone with better knowledge than mine of ICANN and Verisgn
systems
said $1000 was justified, though.

Nor do I see any reason this needs much discussion. The domain makes sense
and the organisation seems quite likely to be competent to administer it.

- --
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:42:03 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Rules for new lists -- needed or not?

Lists need list managers, chairs, moderators, whatever you want to call
them, to coordinate the discussion, identify common ground, focus on
additional areas for discussion, move the discussion past problems that can
never be solved, answer procedural questions, and in some instances handle
decorum issues. The Chair should be allowed some discretion in handling all
of those issues.

    -- Bret

babybows.com wrote:
> Questions for those of you that participated in working groups A,B,C,D,E,
> and Review...
> 
> Did your working groups have formal rules?  If not, were there many
> instances of decorum problems?   Did you manage to get the work done without
> recourse to an abuse resolution process?  We need to determine what rules,
> if any, should govern these lists.  Perhaps past experience can guide us.

- --
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:44:19 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] .ie Seeks to Organize Irish Bid to Run .eu

> From: Sandy Harris [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 10:16 AM
> 
> > Bruce James wrote:
> 
> > I think that ICANN should assign dot.EU to the European 
> Commission and let it decide
> > who will run it.....IMHO
>  
> If that were a motion, I'd second it. However, it doesn't 
> seem to be, so I'll
> propose my own:
> 
>  ICANN should immediately inform the European Commission that 
> .eu will be created
>  at their request, and instruct Verisign to make preparations 
> to have it running
>  within two working days of receipt of such a request.
> 
>  The letter informing them of this should specify (possibly 
> by reference to
>  existing documents) what name server and other information 
> must be provided and
>  what administrative procedures will be required to 
> authenticate the request.
> 
>  Any charges involved should be no more than a reasonable 
> administration fee.
> 
> Do I have a second? Debate?

I can second this motion with caveats and clarifacations;
EU will most probably be run from RIPE. RIPE already has zone servers of
their own. The only this is that NSI must make the zone entries into the DOC
root zone. For that, the USG/DOC/NTIA must approve it. Therefore, that is
where the letter must go. ICANN has no direct power to instruct Verisign to
do this.

> I see no reason and admin fee should be more than about $100, 
> 50 bucks each for
> clerical work at ICANN and an hour's system admin time at 
> Verisign. I wouldn't
> argue if someone with better knowledge than mine of ICANN and 
> Verisgn systems
> said $1000 was justified, though.

It is the height of arrogance to presume to tell a sovreign state, or other
militarily strong political body, what they can or can't do within their
domain. EU will charge whatever they want.

> Nor do I see any reason this needs much discussion. The 
> domain makes sense
> and the organisation seems quite likely to be competent to 
> administer it.

Drop the fee limits and it might pass. Otherwise, further discussions are
certainly guaranteed.
- --
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:43:30 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Alternative roots

- --------------3CE7BEA15C801CF4EBF93ABE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

First of all I think we should all agree that the term Alt or Alternative
roots, is not negative but simply a catch phrase which is descirptive in the
positive meaning of giving choice.

OTOH if collisions mean destruction of that choice the definition is helpful in
determining the difference between competitive roots and alternative roots.  If
one party benefits by harm to another party I would say that is competitive.

In this context we revisit .biz.  You can twist it any way you want but ICANN's
behavior on this matter is clearly competitive. Add into this fray Prof.
Froomkin's article which appears very verifiable (unless we face a massive
conspiracy).
"when ICANN takes a decision, it relies on the view of what it considers the
four or five major stakeholders" - decided by staff.

We must reach a MOU with alternate-competitors or stop pretending that we can
be each others officers and or each others members.

Kristy McKee wrote:

> 1)  We do not want to introduce new TLDs into the USG Root that are already
> in use by other Roots.
>

If it is competition, yes we do! I don't but who am I.

>
> 2)  We do want the USG Root service to create a process for communicating
> and collaborating with the other Root services.
>

First show us the benefit to ICANN and compliance with the MOU, White Paper,
the RFCs, Tax and corporate law, and the DoC and subcontractor (registry and
registrar)agreements. Non-profits collaborating with profits is a sticky wicket
at best.

>
> 2a) The TLDA seems like the natural choice - they are already making
> progress in this arena - the ICANN should join the TLDA.
>

There is a certain conflict of interest within the GA, but it seems that
defacto the TLDA has already joined the GA.

>
> I would take it one step further and say the ICANN should work with all
> other Root Services; but understand not everyone agrees with me...
>
>

I like cooperation but concessions will have to be made and DoC approval is a
must.

Sincerely,

- --------------3CE7BEA15C801CF4EBF93ABE
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
First of all I think we should all agree that the term Alt or Alternative
roots, is not negative but simply a catch phrase which is descirptive in
the positive meaning of giving choice.
<p>OTOH if collisions mean destruction of that choice the definition is
helpful in determining the difference between competitive roots and alternative
roots.&nbsp; If one party benefits by harm to another party I would say
that is competitive.
<p>In this context we revisit .biz.&nbsp; You can twist it any way you
want but ICANN's behavior on this matter is clearly competitive. Add into
this fray Prof. Froomkin's article which appears very verifiable (unless
we face a massive conspiracy).
<br>"when ICANN takes a decision, it relies on the view of what it considers
the four or five major stakeholders" - decided by staff.
<p>We must reach a MOU with alternate-competitors or stop pretending that
we can be each others officers and or each others members.
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;
<p>Kristy McKee wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>1)&nbsp; We do not want to introduce new TLDs into
the USG Root that are already
<br>in use by other Roots.
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
If it is competition, yes we do! I don't but who am I.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>2)&nbsp; We do want the USG Root service to create a process for communicating
<br>and collaborating with the other Root services.
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
First show us the benefit to ICANN and compliance with the MOU, White Paper,
the RFCs, Tax and corporate law, and the DoC and subcontractor (registry
and registrar)agreements. Non-profits collaborating with profits is a sticky
wicket at best.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>2a) The TLDA seems like the natural choice - they are already making
<br>progress in this arena - the ICANN should join the TLDA.
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
There is a certain conflict of interest within the GA, but it seems that
defacto the TLDA has already joined the GA.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>I would take it one step further and say the ICANN should work with
all
<br>other Root Services; but understand not everyone agrees with me...
<br>&nbsp;
<br><a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html"></a>&nbsp;</blockquote>
I like cooperation but concessions will have to be made and DoC approval
is a must.
<p>Sincerely,</html>

- --------------3CE7BEA15C801CF4EBF93ABE--

- --
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:56:21 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ie Seeks to Organize Irish Bid to Run .eu

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> > Do I have a second? Debate?
> 
> I can second this motion with caveats and clarifacations;

I have no problem with those.

> EU will most probably be run from RIPE. RIPE already has zone servers of
> their own. The only this is that NSI must make the zone entries into the DOC
> root zone. For that, the USG/DOC/NTIA must approve it. Therefore, that is
> where the letter must go. ICANN has no direct power to instruct Verisign to
> do this.
> 
> > I see no reason and admin fee should be more than about $100,
> > 50 bucks each for
> > clerical work at ICANN and an hour's system admin time at
> > Verisign. I wouldn't
> > argue if someone with better knowledge than mine of ICANN and
> > Verisgn systems
> > said $1000 was justified, though.
> 
> It is the height of arrogance to presume to tell a sovreign state, or other
> militarily strong political body, what they can or can't do within their
> domain. EU will charge whatever they want.

Of course charges within .eu are up to them. I meant that ICANN and Verisign
should charge only a reasonable fee for making entries in the root.
  
> > Nor do I see any reason this needs much discussion. The
> > domain makes sense
> > and the organisation seems quite likely to be competent to
> > administer it.
> 
> Drop the fee limits and it might pass. Otherwise, further discussions are
> certainly guaranteed.
- --
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:07:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ie Seeks to Organize Irish Bid to Run .eu

I think rather than rushing off to create new ccTLDs, it might make a
little sense to think about generalizable rules?

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Sandy Harris wrote:

> > Bruce James wrote:
> 
> > I think that ICANN should assign dot.EU to the European Commission and let it decide
> > who will run it.....IMHO
>  
> If that were a motion, I'd second it. However, it doesn't seem to be, so I'll
> propose my own:
> 
>  ICANN should immediately inform the European Commission that .eu will be created
>  at their request, and instruct Verisign to make preparations to have it running
>  within two working days of receipt of such a request.
> 
>  The letter informing them of this should specify (possibly by reference to
>  existing documents) what name server and other information must be provided and
>  what administrative procedures will be required to authenticate the request.
> 
>  Any charges involved should be no more than a reasonable administration fee.
> 
> Do I have a second? Debate?
> 
> I see no reason and admin fee should be more than about $100, 50 bucks each for
> clerical work at ICANN and an hour's system admin time at Verisign. I wouldn't
> argue if someone with better knowledge than mine of ICANN and Verisgn systems
> said $1000 was justified, though.
> 
> Nor do I see any reason this needs much discussion. The domain makes sense
> and the organisation seems quite likely to be competent to administer it.
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's hot here.<--

- --
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:11:34 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Additional Mailing Lists

At 10:19 AM 4/22/2001 -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>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.

         I agree with Patrick on many things, but like Joop I disagree with 
this one.  The GA, and GA mailing lists, can't produce useful work-product 
unless enough people with jobs and lives, from a variety of backgrounds, 
are willing and able to participate in the discussion.  When list volume 
gets too high, people drop out, and we end up with a small, closed circle 
of folks talking to each other.  Their ultimate agreement doesn't have 
credibility because it's not broad-based.

         Posting limits keep list volume manageable.  They also improve the 
quality of messages, because they force people to pause, and think, before 
hitting the send button.  In WG-C, after a period in which list volume was 
extremely high, and at the suggestion of WG-D, we put in place a posting 
limit of *two* (yes, two) messages a day.  It worked pretty well.

Jon

- --
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:30:50 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ie Seeks to Organize Irish Bid to Run .eu

I fail to see what fees the ccTLDs should have to pay other than a 
minimal "setup" fee to enter the TLD into the rootzone file.  What 
services are providing by ICANN to each ccTLD?  I can understand a 
solititation for funding donations by ccTLDs and other registries and I 
can also understand cost recovery fees for services rendered, such as 
contract review for those who wish to actually contract with ICANN.  

$50 - $100 for inclusion in the rootzone file is ample for the time and 
effort expended to do so - letter to DoC for approval; letter to VRSN to 
enter the 3 lines of text.  Unless ICANN will be operating TLD servers for 
the .EU domain, there are no other costs involved that I can see.

Leah

On 23 Apr 2001, at 12:31, Bruce James wrote:

> Sandy:
> 
> You have a great start, but I hate to limit the ICANN BoD. This new ccTLD
> should pay the same fees to ICANN that the other ccTLDs pay. I am not too
> sure VRSN should be the back office, but it could be.
> 
> IMHO.....:)
> 
> /Bruce
> "Let us reason together."
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sandy Harris" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "[GA]" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 12:16
> Subject: Re: [ga] .ie Seeks to Organize Irish Bid to Run .eu
> 
> 
> > Bruce James wrote:
> 
> > I think that ICANN should assign dot.EU to the European Commission and let
> it decide
> > who will run it.....IMHO
> 
> If that were a motion, I'd second it. However, it doesn't seem to be, so
> I'll
> propose my own:
> 
>  ICANN should immediately inform the European Commission that .eu will be
> created
>  at their request, and instruct Verisign to make preparations to have it
> running
>  within two working days of receipt of such a request.
> 
>  The letter informing them of this should specify (possibly by reference to
>  existing documents) what name server and other information must be provided
> and
>  what administrative procedures will be required to authenticate the
> request.
> 
>  Any charges involved should be no more than a reasonable administration
> fee.
> 
> Do I have a second? Debate?
> 
> I see no reason and admin fee should be more than about $100, 50 bucks each
> for
> clerical work at ICANN and an hour's system admin time at Verisign. I
> wouldn't
> argue if someone with better knowledge than mine of ICANN and Verisgn
> systems
> said $1000 was justified, though.
> 
> Nor do I see any reason this needs much discussion. The domain makes sense
> and the organisation seems quite likely to be competent to administer it.
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:37:43 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Rules for new lists -- needed or not?

On 23 Apr 2001, at 10:42, Bret Fausett wrote:

> Lists need list managers, chairs, moderators, whatever you want to call
> them, to coordinate the discussion, identify common ground, focus on
> additional areas for discussion, move the discussion past problems that can
> never be solved, answer procedural questions, and in some instances handle
> decorum issues. The Chair should be allowed some discretion in handling all
> of those issues.

My suggestion would be to have the list members select their own list 
chair.  They should also be allowed to select the list monitor/manager, 
IMO.  In the past, we have seen WG's whose appointed chairs have 
submitted reports that do not resemble a list consensus.  That  has left 
a feeling of "no confidence" in the process.  Perhaps if the list members 
had the opportunity to select their own chair/co-chairs, the result may 
be more universally accepted.

Leah

> 
>     -- Bret
> 
> babybows.com wrote:
> > Questions for those of you that participated in working groups A,B,C,D,E,
> > and Review...
> > 
> > Did your working groups have formal rules?  If not, were there many
> > instances of decorum problems?   Did you manage to get the work done without
> > recourse to an abuse resolution process?  We need to determine what rules,
> > if any, should govern these lists.  Perhaps past experience can guide us.
> 
> 
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #416
************************