Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #422
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, April 26 2001           Volume 01 : Number 422

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

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:31:21 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] domain name owner's bill of rights

IMHO

This is a very good concept.  Well inacted and given some legal teeth this type
of internationally accepted document can stem most of the abuses most often
complained of by stakeholders.

At the very least it can become an industry standard which can be used
persuasively in any conflict.

The most obvoius use of such a mechanism would be in UDRP matters.  If through
some electronic type miracle we could get WIPO to recognize and accept it as a
guiding principal, we would have done a great service for internetstakeholders.

The uses regarding matters like the Verisign deal should not be ignored.  It
could also be drafted in such a way as to impliment bottoms up process also.

We also do not have to start from the beginning - http://www.tldlobby.com/ is
only a starting example.

Sincerely,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Thursday, April 12, 2001 10:50 AM (AEST)
> Srikanth Narra <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Subject: [ga] domain name owner's bill of rights
>
> > Anywhere in the agreements (mela) that surround ICANN - is there any thing
> that
> > sounds or feels like bill of rights for domain name owners ?
>
> Hi Srikanth
>
> Did anyone ever get back to you on this question?  The Chair is setting up
> several working groups and this is the sort of issue that may be referred to
> one of them to be considered.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:35:42 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] U.S. Gov't sets date for ICANN-Verisign power deal appro val

I am trying very hard to stay positive but this type of remark directly from
Versign after all the talk about extensions being impossible for the purpose of
reviewing this matter prior to signing.  I can still see Toutons face as he
just shrugged off the question of extensions in Melbourne and he did it in such
a way as to make it appear that it was just a stupid suggestion.
Now Verising says no sweat for thier own purposes.  I say we fire our lawyers
and then sue them for misrepresentation and malpractice. I also believe that
the problem indicates reasonable grounds to believe there is a conflict of
interest for our lawyers.
A full disclosure of clients related to these matters is entirely called for.

Sincerely,

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Chuck,
>
> Thursday, April 26, 2001, 5:59:38 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > David,
>
> > Because May 14th falls after the May 10th deadline that is in the current
> > agreements, an extension is essential.
>
> The same could have been said was essential to a proper review of the
> contract by the DNSO.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:[email-masked]
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 06:50:34 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] U.S. Gov't sets date for ICANN-Verisign power deal appro val

The point I was trying to make is that when many within ICANN begged
for even a 30 day extension to allow more time for consultation the
very clear message was that this is not possible and we will stick
with the status quo if no decision by this time.  We were told even a
delay of some weeks would be unfair to Verisign's plans.

The USG has now asked for a 21 day extension and as you have indicated
this will be granted.  Why the different treatment between requests
from ICANN for more time and requests from the USG?

DPF

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:59:38 -0400, Chuck Gomes wrote:

>David,
>
>Because May 14th falls after the May 10th deadline that is in the current
>agreements, an extension is essential.
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 8:09 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] U.S. Gov't sets date for ICANN-Verisign power deal
>approval
>
>
>On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 19:28:54 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>All,
>>
>>The United States Department of Commerce is promising the ICANN it will
>>decide by May 14, 2001 whether to ratify controversial new contracts
>>that would, among other things, allow domain name giant Verisign to
>>retain its powers over .com for at least 6 more years. However, ICANN's
>>decision and request for approval may yet be countermanded as several
>>ranking U.S. politicians seek a formal investigation of ICANN's
>>procedures.
>>
>>Also see
>>http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/#highlights
>
>The US Govt has also asked NSI for an extension to the existing
>agreements - something we were told here was impossible and would
>never be agreed to.  Who wants a bet that NSI and ICANN agree to such
>an extension?
>
>DPF
>--
>[email-masked]
>ICQ 29964527
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:49:50 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] U.S. Gov't sets date for ICANN-Verisign power deal appro val

> From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 11:51 AM

> The USG has now asked for a 21 day extension and as you have indicated
> this will be granted.  Why the different treatment between requests
> from ICANN for more time and requests from the USG?

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:04:40 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] No Choice

After reading these matters together I have come to the inescapable
conclusion that we must get to work on this matter with urgency.  There
can be no reasonable grounds to suggest that we are not in a postion to
discuss the issues.  If the system is going to work then we should begin
giving input immediately.

Certainly this site is reccomended reading, http://www.adns.net/.  I
note that Mr. Cerf recently commented he had never visited anything to
do with any other root. McClaughlin must be doing a bang up job on
policy issues.

Lets try this for something to debate;

ICANN should enter into cooperation agreements with any root that
requests it.
Which group can lay claim to be representative of all other roots?

Sincerely,

       4)  COMPETITIVE ROOTS [ROOTS]:
            Alternate Root Systems (Colliders)

       Competitive Roots:  To consider and recommend policy improvements
in
       relation to ICANN's relationship with external or competitive
root systems
       including, but not limited to, what has been called alternate or
inclusive
       roots, and colliding top-level domains.

                                                  DNSO Mailling lists
archives

                                                      [nc-intake]

                                        <<< Chronological Index >>>
<<< Thread Index >>>

       [nc-intake] RE: [council] Agenda items.... Alternate Roots and
Stuart...

            To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
            Subject: [nc-intake] RE: [council] Agenda items....
Alternate Roots and Stuart...
            From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
            Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:43:41 -0400
            Cc: "'Milton Mueller'" <[email-masked]>,
<[email-masked]>
            Importance: Normal
            In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
            Sender: [email-masked]

       To all-

       I reacted prematurely, and without confirmation of Stuart's
words.

       The source is heresay, and not verified by confirmation from
other sources,
       and Stuart himself indicates he did not say it.

       My apologies to Stuart for the hasty mis-quote.

       Nevertheless- I feel the NC should begin discussion on the
subject of
       alternate roots, especially the new.net well-financed contractual
deals,
       their potential impact on the stability of the Internet, and the
NC advice
       to the Board.

       Let us not ignore this like the Ostrich.

       Peter

       -----Original Message-----
       From: Milton Mueller [mailto:[email-masked]]
       Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 10:19 AM
       To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
       [email-masked]
       Subject: RE: [council] Agenda items....

       Peter:
       Thank you for introducing that issue.
       If Mr. Lynn is really saying that to DoC, I think we should
strongly
       discourage him from doing so.

       The DNS protocol assumes a unique root, but it does not specify
which root.
       The decision where to point a name server or client is (and in a
free
       society, must be) an entirely voluntary decision.

       Thus, when Stuart Lynn or the IAB or anyone else runs to a
governmental
       authority and claims that the existence of another root is
"destabilizing,"
       I have two concerns:

       1. Is he angling for legislation or regulations banning
alternative efforts?
       I hope not. The Web would be more "stable" and less confusing if
Netscape
       and Microsoft didn't produce alternate browsers. The world would
be more
       stable and more compatible if we all spoke the same language. But
do we
       really want to stifle change and diversity?

       2. Lynn begs the question as to who is obligated to coordinate
with whom. To
       the Pacific Root and other smaller efforts supporting TLDs that
predate
       ICANN, ICANN is the encroacher. To ICANN, Pacific Root and other
alts are
       the encroachers. Obviously, ICANN is now the dominant root and
the others
       are small. But the roles could easily be reversed in a short
time.

       One of the issues we need to be aware of in this discussion is
antitrust
       liability (that archaic word is what we use in the US - the rest
of you
       refer more sensibly to "competition policy"). That is, whatever
policy we
       adopt must not be designed to prop up a monopoly in root server
operation
       and domain name registration services.

       We also need to be aware of the international and multilingual
implications
       of the alternate root debate. Many countries which want to
develop their own
       path of Internet development may choose something very similar to
what we
       now call "alternate roots."

       >>> "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]> 04/19/01 02:01AM >>>
       I'd suggest the introduction of discussion on alternate roots.

       Stuart Lynn has presented to the US DOC the idea that alternate
roots
       _could_ undermine the stability of the Internet. Specifically,
collisions in
       namespace (i assume he means "A" root and "alternate roots")
could cause
       users to surf to web pages they were not expecting, etc...

       Stuart suggests ICANN have contracts with ISPs- but he doesn't
say what the
       "quid pro quo" would be.

       Since he has brought this up, we should open the topic.

       New.Net HAS contracts with ISPs, with financial incentives, to
place their
       20 new TLDs in the nameservers of those (large) ISPs, such as
Earthlink.
       They are well funded, and will continue to aggressively market
their deals.

       In fact, I attended a recent ISP conference in Baltimore, and
New.Net had a
       substantial presence in the trade show.

       While this is a difficult and sensitive issue, eventually we (the
NC) will
       be expected to advise the Board on Policy and on our official
position.

       Peter de Blanc

       P.S. I have no report on this, I am just suggesting we pay
attention.

       -----Original Message-----
       From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of
       Paul M. Kane
       Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 11:04 AM
       To: NC Intake; names council
       Subject: [council] Agenda items....

       The intake Committee is considering the Agenda for the next
meeting May
       9th. Are there any items that you would like addressed/included?

       Thanks

       Paul
       Chair - Intake Committee

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:46:04 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] U.S. Gov't sets date for ICANN-Verisign power deal appro val

On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 06:50:34AM +1200, DPF wrote:
> The point I was trying to make is that when many within ICANN begged
> for even a 30 day extension to allow more time for consultation the
> very clear message was that this is not possible and we will stick
> with the status quo if no decision by this time.  We were told even a
> delay of some weeks would be unfair to Verisign's plans.
> 
> The USG has now asked for a 21 day extension and as you have indicated
> this will be granted.  Why the different treatment between requests
> from ICANN for more time and requests from the USG?

0) Things change.

1) The USG is one of the signatories to the contract.  The DNSO is not.

2) The DNSO is part of ICANN, it is not ICANN.

3) The DNSO is concerned with general policy, not contract 
negotiations.

4) That the contracts involved any policy issues is questionable, at
best. 

5) The DNSO has absolutely no role in policy *enforcement*, even if 
there had been policy issues in the contracts.

6) There could even be further changes in the contract as the result of 
issues raised by the USG.  That's the way contract negotiations go.  
That's why the idea of the DNSO overseeing the contract negotiations 
is silly.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:18:14 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] No Choice

On 26 Apr 2001, at 13:04, Eric Dierker wrote:

> After reading these matters together I have come to the inescapable
> conclusion that we must get to work on this matter with urgency.  There
> can be no reasonable grounds to suggest that we are not in a postion to
> discuss the issues.  If the system is going to work then we should begin
> giving input immediately.
> 
> Certainly this site is reccomended reading, http://www.adns.net/.  I
> note that Mr. Cerf recently commented he had never visited anything to
> do with any other root. McClaughlin must be doing a bang up job on
> policy issues.
> 
> Lets try this for something to debate;
> 
> ICANN should enter into cooperation agreements with any root that
> requests it.
> Which group can lay claim to be representative of all other roots?

There is not one organization for all roots.  Each is independent, which 
is as it should be.  However, the goal is for them to communicate with 
each other.  Most of them do that when it comes to notifying each other 
when TLDs are loaded, server changes for TLDs, etc.  

Coordinating those communications is a worthy effort, IMO.  
Cooperation among all roots and TLD holders can only help to maintain 
Internet stability.  That has been the goal all along.  Had that 
cooperation been there, most of the contentious issues we face now 
would not have occurred.

Leah

> 
> Sincerely,
> 
>        4)  COMPETITIVE ROOTS [ROOTS]:
>             Alternate Root Systems (Colliders)
> 
>        Competitive Roots:  To consider and recommend policy improvements
> in
>        relation to ICANN's relationship with external or competitive
> root systems
>        including, but not limited to, what has been called alternate or
> inclusive
>        roots, and colliding top-level domains.
> 
> 
> 
>                                                   DNSO Mailling lists
> archives
> 
>                                                       [nc-intake]
> 
> 
>                                         <<< Chronological Index >>>
> <<< Thread Index >>>
> 
> 
>        [nc-intake] RE: [council] Agenda items.... Alternate Roots and
> Stuart...
> 
>             To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
>             Subject: [nc-intake] RE: [council] Agenda items....
> Alternate Roots and Stuart...
>             From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
>             Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:43:41 -0400
>             Cc: "'Milton Mueller'" <[email-masked]>,
> <[email-masked]>
>             Importance: Normal
>             In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
>             Sender: [email-masked]
> 
> 
> 
>        To all-
> 
>        I reacted prematurely, and without confirmation of Stuart's
> words.
> 
>        The source is heresay, and not verified by confirmation from
> other sources,
>        and Stuart himself indicates he did not say it.
> 
>        My apologies to Stuart for the hasty mis-quote.
> 
>        Nevertheless- I feel the NC should begin discussion on the
> subject of
>        alternate roots, especially the new.net well-financed contractual
> deals,
>        their potential impact on the stability of the Internet, and the
> NC advice
>        to the Board.
> 
>        Let us not ignore this like the Ostrich.
> 
>        Peter
> 
>        -----Original Message-----
>        From: Milton Mueller [mailto:[email-masked]]
>        Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 10:19 AM
>        To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>        [email-masked]
>        Subject: RE: [council] Agenda items....
> 
> 
>        Peter:
>        Thank you for introducing that issue.
>        If Mr. Lynn is really saying that to DoC, I think we should
> strongly
>        discourage him from doing so.
> 
>        The DNS protocol assumes a unique root, but it does not specify
> which root.
>        The decision where to point a name server or client is (and in a
> free
>        society, must be) an entirely voluntary decision.
> 
>        Thus, when Stuart Lynn or the IAB or anyone else runs to a
> governmental
>        authority and claims that the existence of another root is
> "destabilizing,"
>        I have two concerns:
> 
>        1. Is he angling for legislation or regulations banning
> alternative efforts?
>        I hope not. The Web would be more "stable" and less confusing if
> Netscape
>        and Microsoft didn't produce alternate browsers. The world would
> be more
>        stable and more compatible if we all spoke the same language. But
> do we
>        really want to stifle change and diversity?
> 
>        2. Lynn begs the question as to who is obligated to coordinate
> with whom. To
>        the Pacific Root and other smaller efforts supporting TLDs that
> predate
>        ICANN, ICANN is the encroacher. To ICANN, Pacific Root and other
> alts are
>        the encroachers. Obviously, ICANN is now the dominant root and
> the others
>        are small. But the roles could easily be reversed in a short
> time.
> 
>        One of the issues we need to be aware of in this discussion is
> antitrust
>        liability (that archaic word is what we use in the US - the rest
> of you
>        refer more sensibly to "competition policy"). That is, whatever
> policy we
>        adopt must not be designed to prop up a monopoly in root server
> operation
>        and domain name registration services.
> 
>        We also need to be aware of the international and multilingual
> implications
>        of the alternate root debate. Many countries which want to
> develop their own
>        path of Internet development may choose something very similar to
> what we
>        now call "alternate roots."
> 
>        >>> "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]> 04/19/01 02:01AM >>>
>        I'd suggest the introduction of discussion on alternate roots.
> 
>        Stuart Lynn has presented to the US DOC the idea that alternate
> roots
>        _could_ undermine the stability of the Internet. Specifically,
> collisions in
>        namespace (i assume he means "A" root and "alternate roots")
> could cause
>        users to surf to web pages they were not expecting, etc...
> 
>        Stuart suggests ICANN have contracts with ISPs- but he doesn't
> say what the
>        "quid pro quo" would be.
> 
>        Since he has brought this up, we should open the topic.
> 
>        New.Net HAS contracts with ISPs, with financial incentives, to
> place their
>        20 new TLDs in the nameservers of those (large) ISPs, such as
> Earthlink.
>        They are well funded, and will continue to aggressively market
> their deals.
> 
>        In fact, I attended a recent ISP conference in Baltimore, and
> New.Net had a
>        substantial presence in the trade show.
> 
>        While this is a difficult and sensitive issue, eventually we (the
> NC) will
>        be expected to advise the Board on Policy and on our official
> position.
> 
>        Peter de Blanc
> 
>        P.S. I have no report on this, I am just suggesting we pay
> attention.
> 
> 
> 
>        -----Original Message-----
>        From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of
>        Paul M. Kane
>        Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 11:04 AM
>        To: NC Intake; names council
>        Subject: [council] Agenda items....
> 
> 
>        The intake Committee is considering the Agenda for the next
> meeting May
>        9th. Are there any items that you would like addressed/included?
> 
>        Thanks
> 
>        Paul
>        Chair - Intake Committee
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 06:43:31 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DoC Review of ICANN-Verisign Agreement

Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 1:15 PM (AEST), Bruce James wrote:
Subject: [ga] Letter from Alden Abbott, U.S. Departmant of Commerce,to M.
Stuart Lynn

Letter from Alden Abbott, U.S. Department of Commerce, to M. Stuart Lynn,
ICANN

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/doc-to-icann-24apr01.htm

Hi Bruce

I know you are monitoring the ICABB website and information like this is
much appreciated.  Thanks you.

The letter says, in part:

"Given the significant issues raised by the agreements, the Department will
need the next few weeks to complete a thorough review to achieve a
comprehensive understanding of their implications for competition in the
domain name market and the security and stability of the Internet. We are
thus targeting May 14,2001 as the date for communicating the results of our
review to you."

As the DNSO General Assembly is familiar with this agreement, it may be that
it would like to provide some form of input to the DoC review.  I'd like to
address the issue of whether such an input would be within the scope of the
GA mandate.  If not, members may wish to make some other form of
contribution to the review.

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: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:42:56 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] U.S. Gov't sets date for ICANN-Verisign power dea l appro val

William,

DoC received the agreements on April 16th and apparently will make a
decision by May 14th.  That gives DoC about the same amount of time that was
given for community review and feedback.  The additional time beyond May
14th is needed to implement whatever decision is reached.

Keep in mind that I was one of those who took the position that this is a
contractual issue not a policy issue.  In light of that, DoC is a signatory
of the contract, therefore making it mandatory that they are involved.
(BTW, I don't plan to get involved in the contract vs. policy issue
discussion again.)

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 2:18 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: 'DPF'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] U.S. Gov't sets date for ICANN-Verisign power deal
appro val

Hello Chuck,

Thursday, April 26, 2001, 5:59:38 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> David,

> Because May 14th falls after the May 10th deadline that is in the current
> agreements, an extension is essential.

The same could have been said was essential to a proper review of the
contract by the DNSO.

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DoC Review of ICANN-Verisign Agreement

On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> As the DNSO General Assembly is familiar with this agreement, it may be that
> it would like to provide some form of input to the DoC review.  I'd like to
> address the issue of whether such an input would be within the scope of the
> GA mandate.  If not, members may wish to make some other form of
> contribution to the review.

I think it is a great idea, however the usual suspects will no doubt raise
all sorts of objections and nothing will come of it.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               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: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:58:56 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] U.S. Gov't sets date for ICANN-Verisign power deal appro val

- --------------580DF72046D00B99D49CC908
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kent Crispin wrote:

>
> 0) Things change.

Nothing has changed, point to one material change.

>
> 1) The USG is one of the signatories to the contract.  The DNSO is not.

That is nonsense, a BoD represents the corporation, DNSO is a fully entitled
part of that corporation.  The BoD is not the corporation it is the board
which can only act on behalf of the corporation. Therefor clearly the DNSO
is part of the corporation which is a signatory to the contract.

>
> 2) The DNSO is part of ICANN, it is not ICANN.

That is correct the BoD is not ICANN it is part of ICANN and the Staff is
supposed to be the highly paid employee/servants, not of the BoD but of
ICANN to which the DNSO is part and the staff is not.

>
> 3) The DNSO is concerned with general policy, not contract
> negotiations.

Lest you did not know, in California Public Policy is a fully integrated
part of each and every contract.  Violate Public Policy and your Contract is
void or voidable. Therefor it is the contract that must be subservient to
the DNSO which is the Public policy formation group in ICANN which is an APA
controlled government contractor. The White Paper is also a public policy
directive which governs the terms of the contract.  You are looking at this
as though you were standing on your head.  The DNSO and it's input is
required by every document enabling ICANN to operate.  The BoD is answerable
to the DNSO and not the other way around as our staff has manipulated it.
Rest assured this will be corrected or ICANN will be replaced.

>
> 4) That the contracts involved any policy issues is questionable, at
> best.

The contract itself involves registration policies look up the word policy I
have already posted the defintion for you once. And don't forget every
contract is governed by Public Policy so by it's very nature a contract has
policy issues, yes even your contract for employment.

>
> 5) The DNSO has absolutely no role in policy *enforcement*, even if
> there had been policy issues in the contracts.
>

You are outright just plain wrong here.  The DNSO defines policy and
therefor is the director for policy enforcement, again you have the inmates
running the asylum.

>
> 6) There could even be further changes in the contract as the result of
> issues raised by the USG.  That's the way contract negotiations go.
> That's why the idea of the DNSO overseeing the contract negotiations
> is silly.
>

No the exact opposite is true if you have read the enabling papers.  I find
no authority for Staff to negotiate the contracts can you direct me to it.

>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>

"Be lonesome and you will come up with lonesome thoughts and conclusions"
Lonesome - "sad or dejected"

Sincerely,

- --------------580DF72046D00B99D49CC908
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<p>Kent Crispin wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>0) Things change.</blockquote>
Nothing has changed, point to one material change.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>1) The USG is one of the signatories to the contract.&nbsp; The DNSO
is not.</blockquote>
That is nonsense, a BoD represents the corporation, DNSO is a fully entitled
part of that corporation.&nbsp; The BoD is not the corporation it is the
board which can only act on behalf of the corporation. Therefor clearly
the DNSO is part of the corporation which is a signatory to the contract.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>2) The DNSO is part of ICANN, it is not ICANN.</blockquote>
That is correct the BoD is not ICANN it is part of ICANN and the Staff
is supposed to be the highly paid employee/servants, not of the BoD but
of ICANN to which the DNSO is part and the staff is not.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>3) The DNSO is concerned with general policy, not contract
<br>negotiations.</blockquote>
Lest you did not know, in California Public Policy is a fully integrated
part of each and every contract.&nbsp; Violate Public Policy and your Contract
is void or voidable. Therefor it is the contract that must be subservient
to the DNSO which is the Public policy formation group in ICANN which is
an APA controlled government contractor. The White Paper is also a public
policy directive which governs the terms of the contract.&nbsp; You are
looking at this as though you were standing on your head.&nbsp; The DNSO
and it's input is required by every document enabling ICANN to operate.&nbsp;
The BoD is answerable to the DNSO and not the other way around as our staff
has manipulated it.&nbsp; Rest assured this will be corrected or ICANN
will be replaced.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>4) That the contracts involved any policy issues is questionable, at
<br>best.</blockquote>
The contract itself involves registration policies look up the word policy
I have already posted the defintion for you once. And don't forget every
contract is governed by Public Policy so by it's very nature a contract
has policy issues, yes even your contract for employment.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>5) The DNSO has absolutely no role in policy *enforcement*, even if
<br>there had been policy issues in the contracts.
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
You are outright just plain wrong here.&nbsp; The DNSO defines policy and
therefor is the director for policy enforcement, again you have the inmates
running the asylum.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>6) There could even be further changes in the contract as the result
of
<br>issues raised by the USG.&nbsp; That's the way contract negotiations
go.
<br>That's why the idea of the DNSO overseeing the contract negotiations
<br>is silly.
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
No the exact opposite is true if you have read the enabling papers.&nbsp;
I find no authority for Staff to negotiate the contracts can you direct
me to it.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>--
<br>Kent Crispin&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
"Be good, and you will be
<br>[email-masked]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
lonesome." -- Mark Twain
<br><a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html"></a>&nbsp;</blockquote>
"Be lonesome and you will come up with lonesome thoughts and conclusions"
<br>Lonesome - "sad or dejected"
<p>Sincerely,</html>

- --------------580DF72046D00B99D49CC908--

- --
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 #422
************************