Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #417
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, April 24 2001           Volume 01 : Number 417

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

Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:02:55 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ie Seeks to Organize Irish Bid to Run .eu

From what I see below, ICANN depends on and plans on *Country Code Fees* as
income. ICANN needs this income to support itself. I just hope it gets more
*Qualified Support* to meet its IRS requirements to stay a 501(c)(3)
non-profit Org.

Proposed ICANN Budget:

Revenue to Support Continuing Expenses
TLD Name Registries & Registrars
   Unsponsored $2,390 $2,390   tbd
   Sponsored na na   tbd
   ****Country Code**** 1,496 1,496   tbd
Subtotal - DN Registries/Registrars $3,886 $3,886 $398 $4,284 10.2% (a)
   IP Address Registries 428 428 43 471 10.0%
Subtotal - Continuing Revenue $4,314 $4,314 $441 $4,755 10.2%
One Time and Special Project Revenue
Accreditation Fees 560 500 -60 500   (b)
Application Fees
Accreditation na 65 25 25   (b)
Top Level Domains na 2,200   tbd   (d)
Special Project Grants 100 150 -100 tbd   (e)
Contributions & Other 50 300 250 300 500.0% (f)
Subtotal - One Time Revenue $710 $3,215 $115 $825 16.2%
Total Income $5,024 $7,529 $556 $5,580 11.1%
(all in thousands US$)

/Bruce
"Let us reason together."

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
To: "[GA]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 13:30
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-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 15:34:46 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Rules for new lists -- needed or not?

At 02:37 PM 4/23/2001 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:

>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.

         Actually, as far as DNSO WGs are concerned, that was true only of 
WG-A.  In each of working groups B, C, D, E, and REVIEW, the reports were 
prepared and submitted by co-chairs who were selected by the list 
members.  The "NC liason" co-chairs played a secondary role.

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 21:54:30 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ie Seeks to Organize Irish Bid to Run .eu

I don't quite understand the current discussion about dot.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

Well, that's what I presume will happen anyway.
The ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency has put "eu" on the list of
reserved codes to cover any application (7-Sep-99).
The ICANN BoD has decided that codes from the ISO 3166 list
of reserved codes covering any application are delegable
(25-Sep-00).
It seems the Irish Times article is not well-informed. I see
no obstacle, nobody from ICANN challenging dot.EU and consequently
no call from the EU for help. The Commission is the institution
applying in the name of the EU. I don't see any need for a
GA appeal to the Board.

> 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 delays seem to be entirely on the European side.
The necessary legislation has not yet passed the European
Parliament and the Council of Ministers. After that has
happened, a registry operator has to be found. Currently,
not even the question of generic second level domains is
settled.

Best regards,
/// Alexander
- --
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 15:48:59 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Alternative roots

On 23 Apr 2001, at 10:43, Eric Dierker wrote:

> 
> 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.

No we don't!  That's a collision in the DNS and will cause problems.  
The business issue and the DNS issue are two very different issues.  
While both are important, the collision factor is a huge "Don't."  

Competition among registries is fine, but not in a collision.  There 
cannot be a collision,  period.  .BIZ is just an example - representative 
of any TLD collision.  It happens to be the one selected for this round of 
"new" TLDs.

The business part of the issue really doesn't belong in this part of the 
discussion, IMO.  I don't see where the GA would have any impact one 
way or the other. 

> 
> >
> > 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.

One benefit to ICANN is reduction of legal problems.  Had they not 
accepted applications for pre-existing TLDs, it would have been a non-
issue.  "Collaboration" may not be the correct term.  "Cooperation" may 
be a more applicable term.  It is not a contract issue since the other 
TLDs have not applied for contracts with ICANN.

The MOU states that ICANN will maintain the stability of the internet.  
To do so, ICANN will have to communicate with others who operate 
within the DNS.  Whether some wish to recognize the inevitability of 
this or not, it is a simple fact.  All entities must at least communicate 
with the intention of avoiding collisions and form understandings wrt to 
cooperation.  That does not mean that any entity controls another.  It 
simply means coming to the table to talk and agree to cooperate.  It 
does not have to be adversarial as it seems to be now.

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

Once membership is opened, DoC/ICANN would be eligible to join the 
TLDA, of course.  DoC is a TLD holder (com/net/org).

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

There is no conflict of interest other than that imagined by those who do 
not wish to understand what the purpose is for a TLDA.  The TLDA as 
an organization has not joined anything.  Individuals who may become 
members of the TLDA are also members of the GA.  If the GA were 
organized in a fashion where organizations could join, perhaps the 
TLDA or others would do so.  I don't know.  Suffice it to say that the 
TLDA is nothing more than a trade association whose members will be 
TLD holders and are most likely also domain name holders in ICANN 
TLDs.  There is no conflict of interest in any case.

> 
> >
> > 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.
> 

DoC should be advocating communication with all interested parties, 
including the roots and TLD holders.  The MOU language promotes 
cooperation.  Right now the MOU is being greatly offended due to a lack 
of communication and cooperative effort.  However, it begins with 
ICANN.  It is a shame, IMO, that it took a new.net to make people take 
notice that there are more entities involved in the DNS than just 
ICANN/DoC.  There is still a general lack of understanding of how the 
world will use and is using the system.

People on this list have said "prove that China has launched a root."  I 
say it doesn't have to be proven on this list.  Anyone can go to the 
CNNIC site and read it.  It's there.  If China wishes to control its 
citizens' access to areas of the Internet, it will strive to do so.  The 
important factor is that they have launched a root and there is nothing 
that the USG or ICANN can do about it.  It will occur with others, 
whether by governments or private entities.  There are multilingual roots 
and TLD servers that are being recognized by users and these will 
continue to occur. There are several roots outside the US and that trend 
will continue.

 It would be in everyone's best interests to acknowledge and work with it 
rather than stubbornly refuse and, in doing so, cause collisions in the 
DNS that will in turn cause users untold misery.

As for .BIZ, in which I obviously have a vested interest, a collision 
caused by ICANN/DoC's duplication of it will cause a serious problem 
for everyone.  ICANN says it doesn't matter and it's not their doing.  
Wrong, wrong, wrong.  We may not be able to prevent it, but we will 
certainly see the results.  For those who want to label it competition, go 
right ahead.  The label is really immaterial.  We are not competing with 
ICANN.  We were simply running a registry and ICANN decided it was 
okay to run a duplicate registry without regard to the consequences.  
I've said it before...  so be it.  The MOU has no meaning to ICANN/DoC 
then.

Leah

- --
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 16:16:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ie Seeks to Organize Irish Bid to Run .eu

So the EU just hasn't asked ICANN to do anything since sept '00?

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> 
> The delays seem to be entirely on the European side.
> The necessary legislation has not yet passed the European
> Parliament and the Council of Ministers. After that has
> happened, a registry operator has to be found. Currently,
> not even the question of generic second level domains is
> settled.
> 
> 

- -- 
		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 15:18:27 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ie Seeks to Organize Irish Bid to Run .eu

>>It seems the Irish Times article is not well-informed.<<

I agree, they do seem to be.  Thank you for your input and correcting our
misinformation.

/Bruce
"Let us reason together."

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 14:54
Subject: Re: [ga] .ie Seeks to Organize Irish Bid to Run .eu

I don't quite understand the current discussion about dot.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

Well, that's what I presume will happen anyway.
The ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency has put "eu" on the list of
reserved codes to cover any application (7-Sep-99).
The ICANN BoD has decided that codes from the ISO 3166 list
of reserved codes covering any application are delegable
(25-Sep-00).
It seems the Irish Times article is not well-informed. I see
no obstacle, nobody from ICANN challenging dot.EU and consequently
no call from the EU for help. The Commission is the institution
applying in the name of the EU. I don't see any need for a
GA appeal to the Board.

> 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 delays seem to be entirely on the European side.
The necessary legislation has not yet passed the European
Parliament and the Council of Ministers. After that has
happened, a registry operator has to be found. Currently,
not even the question of generic second level domains is
settled.

Best regards,
/// Alexander
- --
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 16:55:15 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] .ie Seeks to Organize Irish Bid to Run .eu

My limited understanding is that there needs to be work going on in Europe,
as Alexander's note indicates, and that is underway.

But, my knowledge is limited.... someone else may know more on this front. 

It doesn't appear to be a GA issue, or work item, though, in it's present
form.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 4:16 PM
To: Alexander Svensson
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] .ie Seeks to Organize Irish Bid to Run .eu

So the EU just hasn't asked ICANN to do anything since sept '00?

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> 
> The delays seem to be entirely on the European side.
> The necessary legislation has not yet passed the European
> Parliament and the Council of Ministers. After that has
> happened, a registry operator has to be found. Currently,
> not even the question of generic second level domains is
> settled.
> 
> 

- -- 
		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
- --
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 17:23:41 -0400 (AST)
From: John Charles Broomfield <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Alternative roots

> On 23 Apr 2001, at 10:43, Eric Dierker wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> No we don't!  That's a collision in the DNS and will cause problems.  
> The business issue and the DNS issue are two very different issues.  
> While both are important, the collision factor is a huge "Don't."  
> 
> Competition among registries is fine, but not in a collision.  There 
> cannot be a collision,  period.  .BIZ is just an example - representative 
> of any TLD collision.  It happens to be the one selected for this round of 
> "new" TLDs.

Yes we do, no we don't... Generalities are such fun aren't they?
"We don't want collisions" sounds quite nice as a battle cry and something
that everyone would want to stand behind, but what EXACTLY is a collision?
A purist might say that a collision is when ANYWHERE in the world two people
typing the same thing could potentially get different answers. This Is a
BAD THING (tm) some would say...

ICANN (or anyone operating ANY bunch of root-servers -legacy or not-) has to
decide what exactly it is going to consider legitimate enough to warrant
respect. No, this is NOT "higher than thou", it is just common sense. *ALL*
of the alternative roots out there have their own rules as to what they
consider legitimate or not (to an extent). Just blindly saying that ANY
previously set up TLD *ANYWHERE* in the world is to be respected is just not
good enough. What stops everyone in the world in that case just setting up
half a dozen TLDs on their own home machine? (no, I won't go down the line
of argument of "why shouldn't they?", we're talking about expansion of what
exists, not creation of a totally different beast, go elswhere if you want
that argument).

ICANN, *according to its own rules* is not condoning, promulgating or creating
any type of collision whatsoever... It starts of from a point where it takes
care of only its own namespace, and as such will not have two entities
running the same TLD within its own servers. The rules it setup to decide
who is legitimate to run ADDITIONS to its server, you know all about ($50K
registration etc...).

The alternative root servers have each and every one of them their own rules
to define collisions and to define what is or not worthy of respect. Just
saying as a blanket statement that the alternative root servers do not have
collisions is a falacy. Just in case, I remind people that to prove a
point, about 2-3 years ago -maybe less, not too sure-, I publicly claimed on
a few lists [dns-policy comes to mind amongst others] a stake to ALL
up-to-then non-used anywhere in the world alphanumeric combinations of 3-10
(maybe 20 can't remember) characters. So, ANY additions since then obviously
collide with my personal namespace (nameservers running on my own network,
but for obvious reasons the addresses won't be divulged).

Of course, they will all claim that my nameservers and my namespace don't
count as far as their own rules to how they manage their servers. Of course,
they are right, but at the same time they fail to see that ICANN can decide
what is worthy of respect and what isn't, what merits a claim to
non-collision and what doesn't. In other words, as far as ICANN is
concerned, there is NO collision. As far as OTHER peoples namespaces go,
that is their own problem...

If we were talking about IP address space instead of DNS namespace, the
problm would be akin to a bunch of people unilaterally deciding to use in a
private manner a bunch of IP addresses that nobody up to then had used (but
not using the addresses set aside as private address space), and then
suddenly yelling like crazy once they find out that the addresses they had
been using for a while (in an unsanctioned manner) were assigned to some
other entity. Nothing stops them from continuing to use those addresses as
they wish, but its not something that I would recommend. (I see this type of
scenario every day by the way, speaks a lot about who sets up their
network).

Yours, John Broomfield.
- --
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 23:13:55 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ie Seeks to Organize Irish Bid to Run .eu

Hello Michael,

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote on 23.04.01, 16:16:15:
> So the EU just hasn't asked ICANN to do anything since sept '00?

In October 2000, Christopher Wilkinson (Commission) reported that 
"ICANN will need a full proposal before an agreement can be 
concluded with the registry operator."
(http://www.ec-pop.org/1002/index.htm)

After that, an Interim Steering Group has identified several
options (10-Oct-00; http://www.ec-pop.org/1009prop/index.htm)
and the Commission has proposed a regulation for the implementation
of Dot.EU (12-Dec-00). This regulation will be considered
in May (EP) and April/June (Council), according to the Commission.
If all that works out, the Commission will call for proposals for
running the registry. Then the Registry shall enter into a contract 
with ICANN, having obtained the prior consent of the Commission.

So, no, the EU hasn't asked ICANN to do anything since then.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>>
>> The delays seem to be entirely on the European side.
>> The necessary legislation has not yet passed the European
>> Parliament and the Council of Ministers. After that has
>> happened, a registry operator has to be found. Currently,
>> not even the question of generic second level domains is
>> settled.
>>
>>

> --
> 		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.<--

_______________________________________________________
  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: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 23:48:32 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC vote to confirm the GA Chair and Alternate

23 April 2001, 23:00 Paris time (21:00 UTC).

Re: b05

Vote by the Names Council to confirm the selection by the GA 
for a Chair and an Alternate Chair to the General Assembly

The 102 members of the DNSO GA selected:
        Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
        Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
Full record published 8 April 2001 in 
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b04fullrecord.html

The time for the Names Council confirmation vote was:
    Starting Monday, 16 April 2001, 13:00 Paris time (11:00 UTC)
    Ending   Monday, 23 April 2001, 22:00 Paris time (20:00 UTC)
             or when all 19 ballots from the NC has been received,
             whatever occurs first.

Ballot sent with       6 choices
       b05:[ ] I accept Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
       b05:[ ] I do not accept Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
       b05:[ ] I abstain for Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
       b05:[ ] I accept Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
       b05:[ ] I do not accept Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
       b05:[ ] I abstain for Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
 
Electorate of      19 persons, casting one vote each
Ballots received from      16 persons (sorted by arrival time)
       Ken Stubbs
       Peter de Blanc
       Milton Mueller
       Michael Schneider
       Erica Roberts
       Paul Kane
       Philip Sheppard
       Grant Forsyth
       Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
       Theresa Swinehart
       Oscar Alejandro Robles Garay
       Antonio Harris
       Youn Jung Park
       Elisabeth Porteneuve
       Roger Cochetti
       Guillermo Carey
 
Casted votes (sorted by personal code)
       b05:K16afZ casted  2 votes
       b05:K289fZ casted  2 votes
       b05:K2dffZ casted  2 votes
       b05:K3d56Z casted  2 votes
       b05:K5b36Z casted  2 votes
       b05:K5e11Z casted  2 votes
       b05:K632aZ casted  2 votes
       b05:K79efZ casted  2 votes
       b05:K7cecZ casted  2 votes
       b05:K8745Z casted  2 votes
       b05:K87d4Z casted  2 votes
       b05:KabeaZ casted  2 votes
       b05:Kacb8Z casted  2 votes
       b05:Kd01cZ casted  2 votes
       b05:Ke8a3Z casted  2 votes
       b05:Kf6b5Z casted  2 votes
 
Nb of casted votes      32
Vote results:

      12 I accept Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
       1 I do not accept Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
       3 I abstain for Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA

      13 I accept Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
       1 I do not accept Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
       2 I abstain for Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
 
Public results (sorted by personal code)
 b05:K16afZ:[ x] I accept Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
 b05:K16afZ:[x ] I accept Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
 b05:K289fZ:[ X] I abstain for Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
 b05:K289fZ:[X ] I abstain for Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
 b05:K2dffZ:[ x] I accept Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
 b05:K2dffZ:[ x] I accept Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
 b05:K3d56Z:[ x] I accept Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
 b05:K3d56Z:[x ] I accept Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
 b05:K5b36Z:[X] I accept Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
 b05:K5b36Z:[X] I accept Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
 b05:K5e11Z:[X] I accept Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
 b05:K5e11Z:[X] I accept Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
 b05:K632aZ:[X ] I accept Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
 b05:K632aZ:[X ] I accept Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
 b05:K79efZ:[x] I accept Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
 b05:K79efZ:[x] I accept Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
 b05:K7cecZ:[X] I abstain for Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
 b05:K7cecZ:[X] I accept Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
 b05:K8745Z:[x ] I abstain for Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
 b05:K8745Z:[x ] I accept Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
 b05:K87d4Z:[x] I accept Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
 b05:K87d4Z:[x] I accept Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
 b05:KabeaZ:[X] I accept Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
 b05:KabeaZ:[X] I accept Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
 b05:Kacb8Z:[X] I abstain for Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
 b05:Kacb8Z:[X] I accept Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
 b05:Kd01cZ:[X] I accept Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
 b05:Kd01cZ:[X] I accept Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
 b05:Ke8a3Z:[X ] I accept Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
 b05:Ke8a3Z:[X ] I do not accept Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
 b05:Kf6b5Z:[x] I accept Patrick Corliss as an Alternate Chair to the GA
 b05:Kf6b5Z:[x] I do not accept Danny Younger as a Chair to the GA
 
DNSO Secretariat
- --
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 17:22:43 -0700
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Alternative roots

Kristy McKee writes:
 > 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.

There is no need to rush.  No one on this list agrees even on the
definition of the so-called "alternate" roots, let alone being able to
come to grips with a NC policy.

 > 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!

Kristy, please listen to what so many others are saying.  There is no
need to keep trying because this has been discussed time and again and
there is nothing left to discuss!

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

NO! I do not agree with this outrageous suggestion that there is any
need to have any accomodation between the ICANN root and the so-called
"alternate" roots.

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

The ICANN root can do whatever it wants.  The so-called "alternate"
roots can do whatever they want.  No communication necessary.

There is nothing to discuss here.  Please bring up something that needs
to be discussed.

/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: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 17:58:42 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Alternative roots

Joe,

This ranting of yours is getting trying. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Kelsey [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 5:23 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [GA]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Alternative roots
> 
> 
> Kristy McKee writes:
>  > 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.
> 
> There is no need to rush.  No one on this list agrees even on the
> definition of the so-called "alternate" roots, let alone being able to
> come to grips with a NC policy.
> 
>  > 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!
> 
> Kristy, please listen to what so many others are saying.  There is no
> need to keep trying because this has been discussed time and again and
> there is nothing left to discuss!
> 
>  > 1)  We do not want to introduce new TLDs into the USG Root 
> that are already 
>  > in use by other Roots.
> 
> NO! I do not agree with this outrageous suggestion that there is any
> need to have any accomodation between the ICANN root and the so-called
> "alternate" roots.
> 
>  > 2)  We do want the USG Root service to create a process 
> for communicating 
>  > and collaborating with the other Root services.
> 
> The ICANN root can do whatever it wants.  The so-called "alternate"
> roots can do whatever they want.  No communication necessary.
> 
> There is nothing to discuss here.  Please bring up something 
> that needs
> to be discussed.
> 
> /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
> 
- --
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 21:49:36 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Alternative roots

On 23 Apr 2001, at 17:23, John Charles Broomfield wrote:
<snip>

> Yes we do, no we don't... Generalities are such fun aren't they?
> "We don't want collisions" sounds quite nice as a battle cry and something
> that everyone would want to stand behind, but what EXACTLY is a collision?
> A purist might say that a collision is when ANYWHERE in the world two people
> typing the same thing could potentially get different answers. This Is a
> BAD THING (tm) some would say...

Ah, if it were just that simple, I'd say let's see who does what.  
Unfortunately, the potential for real problems is a much larger issue 
than some private remote network offering up a collider.  This is the 
USG root which has a huge market share even though it is being eroded 
a bit.  It involves email, ftp, hostnames...  And who is to say that the 
"alternatives" may not be so alternative after a while?  I don't see it as 
trivial, but that's just me.
> 
> ICANN (or anyone operating ANY bunch of root-servers -legacy or not-) has to
> decide what exactly it is going to consider legitimate enough to warrant
> respect. No, this is NOT "higher than thou", it is just common sense. *ALL*
> of the alternative roots out there have their own rules as to what they
> consider legitimate or not (to an extent). Just blindly saying that ANY
> previously set up TLD *ANYWHERE* in the world is to be respected is just not
> good enough.

I don't think that is what is being said, but again, it's my view of the 
issue.  As for respect, yes, any existing entity should be respected.  If 
a TLD is accessible to the public (not an intranet will not routables) and 
there are live domains out there, it should be respected.  Your business 
is just as important as mine and if you have a business product it 
should not be usurped by a government agent simply because they 
want it.  In addition, if it will cause a technical mess, the agent (ICANN) 
is mandated to avoid it.  

What does it take to earn respect?  Must there be a certain amount of 
money or assets? $50,000?  $150,000? $1,000,000?  Customers?  How 
many is enough?  100?  1000?  100,000?  If 5,000 individuals and 
businesses will be disrupted, is that enough to warrant notice?  You 
said that it is not a higher than thou attitude, but is common sense.  Is 
it common sense to deliberately duplicate a TLD knowing that it will 
disrupt those businesses, email, hostnames...  And what kind of 

 What stops everyone in the world in that case just setting up
> half a dozen TLDs on their own home machine? (no, I won't go down the line
> of argument of "why shouldn't they?", we're talking about expansion of what
> exists, not creation of a totally different beast, go elswhere if you want
> that argument).

> 
> ICANN, *according to its own rules* is not condoning, promulgating or creating
> any type of collision whatsoever... It starts of from a point where it takes
> care of only its own namespace, and as such will not have two entities
> running the same TLD within its own servers. The rules it setup to decide
> who is legitimate to run ADDITIONS to its server, you know all about ($50K
> registration etc...).
> 

And that's the fallacy.  "Their" name space.  A collision occurs when 
there is a duplication in any level of the tree, regardless of which set of 
servers you're talking about.  If the public is accessing those servers, 
there is a problem.  It's one thing if they can or cannot reach an 
address, but quite another if they reach an erroneous address.  Oh 
well... We'll see, huh?

> The alternative root servers have each and every one of them their own rules
> to define collisions and to define what is or not worthy of respect. Just
> saying as a blanket statement that the alternative root servers do not have
> collisions is a falacy. 

No one has said that. It has now been greatly exacerbated because the 
message is out that it's okay to introduce them.   However there has 
been a concerted effort to resolve those collisions.  

Just in case, I remind people that to prove a
> point, about 2-3 years ago -maybe less, not too sure-, I publicly claimed on
> a few lists [dns-policy comes to mind amongst others] a stake to ALL
> up-to-then non-used anywhere in the world alphanumeric combinations of 3-10
> (maybe 20 can't remember) characters. So, ANY additions since then obviously
> collide with my personal namespace (nameservers running on my own network,
> but for obvious reasons the addresses won't be divulged).
> 

If they are not public, what is the problem?  If they are public, it could 
be a problem.  

> Of course, they will all claim that my nameservers and my namespace don't
> count as far as their own rules to how they manage their servers. Of course,
> they are right, but at the same time they fail to see that ICANN can decide
> what is worthy of respect and what isn't, what merits a claim to
> non-collision and what doesn't. In other words, as far as ICANN is
> concerned, there is NO collision. As far as OTHER peoples namespaces go,
> that is their own problem...

So much for generalities.  So, according to your argument, if the so-
called alternative roots must work within their name space and ICANN 
must work within its name space and ICANN is okay with duplicating 
any TLD they choose in their name space, it is by the same token okay 
for any alternative root to do the same, right?  So ORSC, if it chose to 
do so, could then have their version of .com and not worry about the 
collision, right?  After all, it's their rules and they can do as they see fit 
in their name space.  I don't think so.  

So while we are trying to get everyone to the table to have reasonable 
discussions, it's really okay to say, "no, we don't have to" and be 
perfectly correct in saying so.  However, what will be accomplished?  
The DNS will be a mess and everyone will go his own way.  ICANN 
rules the USG root and that is all that matters in the world.  Hmmm...

> If we were talking about IP address space instead of DNS namespace, the
> problm would be akin to a bunch of people unilaterally deciding to use in a
> private manner a bunch of IP addresses that nobody up to then had used (but
> not using the addresses set aside as private address space), and then
> suddenly yelling like crazy once they find out that the addresses they had
> been using for a while (in an unsanctioned manner) were assigned to some
> other entity. Nothing stops them from continuing to use those addresses as
> they wish, but its not something that I would recommend. (I see this type of
> scenario every day by the way, speaks a lot about who sets up their
> network).
> 
> Yours, John Broomfield.
> --
> 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 #417
************************