Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #429
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Tuesday, May 1 2001             Volume 01 : Number 429

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

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:27:23 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] If I were the DOC.

Kristy McKee wrote:

> I agree with both of you ... and I think it is sad that the USG is so
> willing to allow the most common abusers of market share to control this as
> well... You'd think they would learn; but maybe there is an enormous
> financial benefit to having the telco's own and operate our public works
> for them - too bad there is no benefit to the public to have the telcos own
> and operate our public works.

Remember Teapot Dome? And ABSCAM?  It would at least be worth a
look to see if any of the elements of those frauds entered into the initial
empowerment of NSI and then ICANN as to Teapot Dome, and then the
ill-begotten Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act as to ABSCAM-type
lobbying.  (One could practically guarantee a pretty tough go of any such
effort, however.)

Bill Lovell

>
>
> ~k
>
> At 07:44 PM 4/30/2001 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >On 23:59 29/04/01 -0700, Eric Dierker said:
> >
> > >Dear DoC why is there an ICANN?
> > >
> >Because, at a bare minimum, somebody, something better than a pure
> >benevolent dictatorship,  had to take over the "IANA function" when Dr
> >Postel was no longer with us.
> >
> >
> >All what we are doing here is not a wasted effort, even if ICANN would sink
> >into a legal black hole next year. (not likely IMHO)
> >A co-operative of alt-roots together with the "legacy root" will still need
> >the same regulatory hand as ICANN is proposing to give to the world. It
> >will still need to co-ordinate with Governments,  keep an aggressive IP
> >lobby at bay, fend off UN advances through WIPO or the ITU, in short it
> >will need to become a meta-ICANN.
> >
> >There is no going back any more, only forward.
> >
> >If the GA of the DNSO can boot  itself up  as a true worldwide Domain Name
> >stakeholder "parliament" , of representatives that can at least show some
> >credentials of support, it will survive on it's own.
> >Ready for whatever regulatory structure is willing to legitimize itself
> >with it.
> >It might as well be ICANN.
> >
> >Delusionally yours,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
> >the Cyberspace Association and
> >the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> >Elected representative.
> >http://www.idno.org
> >
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:05:55 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Six New DNS Policy Mailing Lists

> You may see it here:
> GA Specific Purposes Lists, setup on 30 April 2001
> 
>   1.. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-ext/Arc00/, External Relationships
>   2.. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-int/Arc00/, Internal Processes
>   3.. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/, Systems
>   4.. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-roots/Arc00/, Competitive Roots
>   5.. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-tm/Arc00/, Trade Marks-IP
>   6.. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-review/Arc00/, GA DNSO Review

Can I suggest it is worth announcing the existence of these lists on ga-
announce as many GA mnembers who are not on this list will be interested in 
participating.

DPF

- --
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, 30 Apr 2001 23:24:58 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Thank you Roberto Gaetano and Harald Alvestrand

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

Dear GA Colleagues,

The main page of the DNSO web site needed some reorganization
in the General Assembly area after the election of new
Chair and Alternate Chair. Hence the new document called
"Administration Documents of the General Assembly of the DNSO",
        http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
the content of which gives a quite impressive record of difficult
work and achievements in the GA organization by you all,
with the help and leadership of Roberto Gaetano
and Harald Halvestrand, the first Chair and Alternate Chair.

Let me express here our most grateful thanks to Roberto and Harald
for their time, wisdom and knowledge in building up an open place
where members of the DNSO can conduct discussion in a civil and
reasonable manner, and serve a valuable input into the DNSO process.

Our best wishes to the New Chair and Alternate Chair, Danny Younger
and Patrick Corliss, taking over the GA challenges
- - there is still so many things to do.

Elisabeth Porteneuve
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, 30 Apr 2001 23:55:49 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Six GA Specific Purposes Lists

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010430.GAlists-over-time.html ]

30 April 2001.

Dear DNSO Members,

The New Chair and Alternate Chair to the General Assembly,
Danny Younger and Patrick Corliss, are taking over the GA challenges.

The following Specific Purposes Mailing Lists are established 
for the General Assembly of the DNSO:

   1. DNSO External Relationships: [email-masked] 
   2. DNSO Internal Processes: [email-masked] 
   3. Systems: [email-masked] 
   4. Competitive Roots: [email-masked] 
   5. Trade Marks and IP: [email-masked] 
   6. GA DNSO Review: [email-masked] 

A mission and/or suggested agenda for each of these has been posted
to the [ga] mailing list in the past few days, originally in
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01283.html
These have now been re-posted, with a few minor adjustments,
to the relevant list.

The GA general rules of decorum apply to these lists and are 
enforced by the Lists Monitor Team. 

   A. The Rules of Order for the Mailing Lists of the General 
      Assembly of the DNSO as adopted in November 2000 are published
      in: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html 
   B. The Lists Monitor Team e-mail address is: [email-masked]. 
   C. In order to provide a useful forum for the exchange of 
      information and opinion, these lists are governed by the 
      following guidelines: 
      1. All postings should relate to the purpose of the list and 
         be free from personal insults or abuse. Restrictions include: 
           a. no cross posting to other lists and 
           b. a daily limit of five postings per person. 
      2. This is a difficult medium so please consider this list 
         precious and take care of it. In particular, you should: 
           a. take the time to read all comments before replying 
           b. allow for the possibility of misunderstanding, and 
           c. respect those from a non-English speaking backgound 
           (do not swamp the discussion with slang or acronyms). 

The General Assembly Mailing Lists are archived on the web site, 
see http://www.dnso.org/archives.html. 

GA Specific Purposes Lists, setup on 30 April 2001
    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-ext/Arc00/,    External Relationships
    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-int/Arc00/,    Internal Processes
    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/,    Systems
    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-roots/Arc00/,  Competitive Roots
    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-tm/Arc00/,     Trade Marks-IP
    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-review/Arc00/, GA DNSO Review

To subscribe to the General Assembly mailing list, please send an 
email to [email-masked] with the words subscribe ListName in 
the body of the message. The ListName is any of the above: 
ga-ext, ga-int, ga-sys, ga-roots, ga-tm, ga-review. 

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, 30 Apr 2001 20:01:47 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Reconsideration Request-<WEB>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C0D1B0.630A90E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In reconsideration request 00-13, Image Online Design, Inc. requests that
the ICANN Board reconsider its November 16, 2000, decision on new TLDs,
which did not include IOD's <.web> TLD proposal among the seven registry
proposals selected for the proof of concept phase.

 http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc00-13.htm

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C0D1B0.630A90E0
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><FONT size=3D2>
<P><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT =
face=3DArial>In=20
reconsideration request 00-13, Image Online Design, Inc. requests that =
the ICANN=20
Board reconsider its November 16, 2000, decision on new TLDs, which did =
not=20
include IOD's &lt;.web&gt; TLD proposal among the seven registry =
proposals=20
selected for the proof of concept phase. </FONT></SPAN></P></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>&nbsp;<A=20
href=3D"http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc00-13.htm">http=
://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc00-13.htm</A></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>/Bruce</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C0D1B0.630A90E0--

- --
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, 30 Apr 2001 21:30:54 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Reconsideration Request<KIDS>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0D1BC.D61B63F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In reconsideration request 01-02, .Kids Domains, Inc., requests that the
ICANN Board reconsider its November 16, 2000 decision on new TLDs, which did
not include KDI's ".Kids" application among the seven registry proposals
selected for the proof of concept phase.

 http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc01-2.htm

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0D1BC.D61B63F0
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><FONT size=3D2>
<P><FONT face=3DArial>In reconsideration request 01-02, .Kids Domains, =
Inc.,=20
requests that the ICANN Board reconsider its November 16, 2000 decision =
on new=20
TLDs, which did not include KDI's ".Kids" application among the seven =
registry=20
proposals selected for the proof of concept =
phase.</FONT></P></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>&nbsp;<A=20
href=3D"http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc01-2.htm">http:=
//www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc01-2.htm</A></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>/Bruce</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0D1BC.D61B63F0--

- --
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: Tue, 1 May 2001 00:35:23 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Appendix U

I am sure that we are all appreciative of the fact that the ICANN Board has
signaled its intent to move quickly to launch the new TLDs.  A seven day
comment period, however, is a device that strains our ability to properly
respond to the many appendices being put forth, and carries with it the
implicit risk that within such a short time-frame critical policy concerns
might be overlooked by the volunteer participants to the DNSO.    The Names
Council in a prior resolution pointed to the general need for "due process
allowing a reasonable time for the constituencies to consider and comment."
This sentiment has been overshadowed by the Board's rush to implement these
new registries.   It is a reality that we must live with, but nonetheless
there is a profound danger in rushing too quickly.

Bret Fausett and others have rightly pointed out that fact that the
confidentiality provisions of appendix U in the proposed registry agreements
will delay the public evaluation of the testbed and the next round of TLDs -
a matter which is decidedly not in the public's best interest.  It appears
as if these registries (which have cited the need for confidential treatment
of approximately 60% of all such data) are utilizing this appendix as a
means to promote and solidify their own market share at the expense of the
registries that are "on hold".  At issue is whether the so-called
"confidential data" is truly proprietary or is merely an anti-competitive
artifice.

At a time when organizations like New.net are entering many new TLDs into
the market and solidifying relationships with ISPs, we need to be concerned
about actions on our part that would further delay the entry of future ICANN
TLDs.   As some of this confidential data would be made available to the
public, at the earliest, in 2003 under the terms of this appendix, we need
to ask whether appendix U as currently written best serves the interests of
all our stakeholders.

We are running out of time to comment.  I ask all of you to review appendix
U.  The General Assembly should make its views known on these matters.

- --
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, 30 Apr 2001 22:25:55 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Appendix U

On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 12:35:23AM -0400, babybows.com wrote:

[...]
 
> Bret Fausett and others have rightly pointed out that fact that the
> confidentiality provisions of appendix U in the proposed registry agreements
> will delay the public evaluation of the testbed and the next round of TLDs -

We can either delay now while the DNSO grinds through several months of 
inconclusive rambling, or we can delay later while the confidentiality 
clauses tick away.  Doesn't matter, and we very well could get the 
worst of it, if the registries make a strong case that they need the 
confidentiality clauses anyway.

> a matter which is decidedly not in the public's best interest.  It appears
> as if these registries (which have cited the need for confidential treatment
> of approximately 60% of all such data) are utilizing this appendix as a
> means to promote and solidify their own market share at the expense of the
> registries that are "on hold".  At issue is whether the so-called
> "confidential data" is truly proprietary or is merely an anti-competitive
> artifice.
> 
> At a time when organizations like New.net are entering many new TLDs into
> the market and solidifying relationships with ISPs, we need to be concerned
> about actions on our part that would further delay the entry of future ICANN
> TLDs.

We need to be more concerned about the quick introduction of the 
already approved ones.

- -- 
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: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 22:24:22 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Appendix U

Kent Crispin wrote:
> We can either delay now while the DNSO grinds through several months of
> inconclusive rambling, or we can delay later while the confidentiality
> clauses tick away.

I don't see months of rambling as an option. These contracts will be
revised, or not, in the next week. I'd rather see the confidentiality delays
fixed now than left in. I read in Danny's message that he fully appreciated
the time pressures on this.

       -- Bret

- --
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, 30 Apr 2001 22:30:18 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Complications

- --------------A0DD692BA6137393AB6EB4B0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Man this is an interesting piece of history.  Why were these men being
placed on the NC by Verisgn and what legacy did they leave us.  Why
didn't the relationship continue or did it?

I have been blessed to ride bulls, exceed 100mph on skis, jump from
things flying just fine, battle cancer, take a bullet and hold dying men
but nothing compares to trying to figure the love between Verisign and
ICANN.

http://corporate.verisign.com/policy/icann/letter_611.html

- --------------A0DD692BA6137393AB6EB4B0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<br>Man this is an interesting piece of history.&nbsp; Why were these men
being placed on the NC by Verisgn and what legacy did they leave us.&nbsp;
Why didn't the relationship continue or did it?
<p>I have been blessed to ride bulls, exceed 100mph on skis, jump from
things flying just fine, battle cancer, take a bullet and hold dying men
but nothing compares to trying to figure the love between Verisign and
ICANN.
<p><a href="http://corporate.verisign.com/policy/icann/letter_611.html">http://corporate.verisign.com/policy/icann/letter_611.html</a>
<br><a href="http://corporate.verisign.com/policy/icann/letter_611.html"></a>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------A0DD692BA6137393AB6EB4B0--

- --
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, 30 Apr 2001 22:42:02 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Appendix U

This is just so much diplomatic crapp.  I can tell you at this point that I
could not be happier over the fact that my supporters chose me as an advocate
and not a milktoast chair.

I would like to say that it is important whether ICANN launches these new TLDs
but in fact it is not.  DoC has to approve them, and any approval of ICANN's
action at this point signals that the Bush administration is just fine with the
mistakes of Clinton.  And they thereby adopt any malfeasance attached thereto.
Well nicities aside, someone will lose their job if the follow down that path,
because we all know it leads to antitrust in one case and collision in the
other. Info and biz, the fact they are the first two to go only proves the
conspiratorial nature of Touton and Mick.

Sincerely,

p.s. nothing herein is meant as hurtful to our co-chairs, they are doing great.

"babybows.com" wrote:

> I am sure that we are all appreciative of the fact that the ICANN Board has
> signaled its intent to move quickly to launch the new TLDs.

- --
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, 30 Apr 2001 23:14:29 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Appendix U

I happen to be one of those unfortunate (or fortunate individuals) who contracted
a really amazing form of non-Hodgkins pancreatic lymphoma caused in pretty good
certainty by testing nuclear bombs in the four corners area of the the U.S.. The
U.S.G. used Kent's logic here - "just launch it and we have plenty of time to deal
with the fallout"  Well Kent I am living proof that that idea is not good. Many
good friends died do to your kind of logic.

I now have many friends throughout the world that will count on the stability of
the net in times to come.  From communal farmers in Vietnam to neurosurgeons in
Hungary.  Many lives depend not on the speed but correctness of the newTLDs; from
their governments comfort level to connectivity investments, speed is convenient
for the tyrant, not for the farmer.

Urgency is more often the cry of disaster than it is success, Holywood
excepted.(ed)

Sorry for the ugly thoughts!

Kent Crispin wrote:

>
> We can either delay now while the DNSO grinds through several months of
> inconclusive rambling, or we can delay later while the confidentiality
> clauses tick away.  Doesn't matter, and we very well could get the
> worst of it, if the registries make a strong case that they need the
> confidentiality clauses anyway.
>
> We need to be more concerned about the quick introduction of the
> already approved ones.
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 16:38:30 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

At 09:13 30.04.2001 -0400, babybows.com wrote:
>Consider this possibility:
>Every day some 35,000 new domain registrations are processed, with fees
>ranging from $9 to $35 for such services.  This equates to 12,775,000
>registrations per annum.  If only 3 cents from every registration was to be
>set aside for the administrative and operational costs of the DNSO, our per
>annum funding would be $383,250 (more than sufficient for our needs).

Remember to deduce the $$$ required for lawyer fees in order to get those 
contracts modified....

>Now some might consider this to be a form of "taxation", and I agree that
>there should be no taxation without representation - hence it becomes
>necessary under this proposal to grant Constituency status to both
>Individuals and to Small Business (long overdue anyway).

Another possible form of representation would be to grant domain name 
owners one vote per registered domain name in a totally-integrated "domian 
name owners' constituency". But see below for what I think is the real 
problem....

>This approach solves several of our problems at once without putting
>anyone's rights at risk.  It creates new constituencies (enhancing necessary
>representation), it fully funds the DNSO in perpetuity, and the mechanism is
>relatively painless for all concerned.

This was tried very early (the USD 30 "infrastructure surcharge" on the 
then-USD 100 .com registration charge). This was overturned after an outcry 
that involved, among other things, the US Congress.
Unfortunately the arguments used do not seem sensitive to the size of the 
surcharge; trying to take 3 cents might be as hard as taking 30 dollars.

              Harald

- --
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, 30 Apr 2001 23:44:54 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] walk before you run

This was clipped from the location listed below.  It is a perfect
example of how lawyers can draft words that are meaningless.  I do not
mean this as a negative of lawyers, but of their clients, in this case
ICANN.

But please do note the outright lies.  This process was never endorsed
by a "wide range of ICANN's stakeholders".  That is a baldfaced ugly
disgusting lie.  It is fraud and deceipt in the worst way, it claims
popular endorsement to which it had none.

But do not be emotional, look at it logically; they had to *say* that
because it is required by law.  This kind of analysis of legal wrangling
will give you a clue as to the extend of our staff's improper conduct.
There is no regard for truth in ICANN's BoD or Staff.

Sincerely,

    We note that this "walk-before-you-run" objective was the result of
an exhaustive consensus development process, endorsed by a wide range of
ICANN's stakeholders.  Most notably, it was the stated recommendation of
the two ICANN Supporting Organizations – the Domain Name Supporting
Organization (DNSO) and the Protocol Supporting Organization (PSO) –
that developed recommendations on new TLDs.  In particular, we note that
the DNSO recommendation was developed through the deliberations of an
open working group over a period of nearly a year, with extensive input
from the members of the various DNSO constituencies and the broader
Internet community.

http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc00-8.htm

Please do not even think of responding until you have read the
documentation, flippant ill-informed responses will be dealt with with
no less than five URLs showing the same behavior.

Happy Labour day to you and yours

- --
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: Tue, 1 May 2001 03:09:00 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

Harald writes:  "trying to take 3 cents might be as hard as taking 30
dollars."

This point is well noted.  What is equally true, however, is that if ICANN
chose to take 3 cents out of each registration fee already paid to ICANN,
and merely applied them as a budget line-item entry designated for the
administrative and operational costs of the DNSO, then our organization
would be able to enjoy the benefits of a funding mechanism that would
neither burden our constituencies, nor put their votes at risk.

ICANN already apportions part of these fees for its own administrative,
technical and professional services.  If we are a part of ICANN, then why
not ask ICANN to support the need for a professional Secretariat and
consider such funding as "expenses reasonably related to the legitimate
activities of the Corporation".

A non-profit organization should not have any difficulties acceding to a
reasonable request which would enhance its own efficiency and which would
allow for the prospect of fuller representation (as barriers-to-entry-
and-participation for constituencies would thereby be removed).

- --
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: Tue, 01 May 2001 17:43:08 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] History [was: Complications]

At 22:30 30/04/01 -0700, Eric Dierker wrote: 
>
>   
> Man this is an interesting piece of history.  Why were these men being
placed
> on the NC by Verisgn and what legacy did they leave us.  Why didn't the
> relationship continue or did it? 

Don Telage was sympathetic to our cause.  He made a genuine effort to improve
the wretched representation situation on the NC and offered  2 of the 3 seats
allocated to the gTLD "constituency" to the unrepresented.  
Of couse, NSI being in frontal confrontation with ICANN at that time, NSI was
happy to use us too, to embarrass ICANN.

After it came to a deal (1999) with ICANN, NSI cooled off from helping the
individual DN holders.
By the time VRSG took over, it was all over. 

>
> I have been blessed to ride bulls, exceed 100mph on skis, jump from things
> flying just fine, battle cancer, take a bullet and hold dying men but
nothing
> compares to trying to figure the love between Verisign and ICANN. 
>
>
> <http://corporate.verisign.com/policy/icann/letter_611.html>http://corpora
> te.verisign.com/policy/icann/letter_611.html 
>   

Did you read Mike Roberts' rejection of that proposal too?
Search the ICANN site.
The interim Board simply reduced NSI's seats for 3 to 1 and that was it.

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --
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: Tue, 01 May 2001 11:14:45 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] iCANN's consensus by exclusion

Dear Harald,

What you mean is the DNSO does not contribute with enough value, so we 
should get rid of it.
What is certainly what Staff and some BoD are attempting.
 > On 10:24 30/04/01, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
 > In normal corporate activity, cost centers that do not contribute 
appropriate value to the
 > effective function of the corporation are shut down; benefit to the 
world outside the corporation > is normally not considered.
 > I do not think we want to encourage normal corporate procedures here.

I am afraid you just miss one point: without the DNSO/GA and the @large, 
the iCANN has not the legal basis to exist.   iCANN has only been set-up to 
manage consensus areas and to preserve TM name space stability. In trying 
to preserve TM name space stability trough an increase of TM privileges it 
meets conflicts it tries to solve in obtaining consensuses by exclusion.

This exclusion policy only makes sense if the excluding parties are 
powerfull enough and solidly tight together: hence the Plan B to create a 
duopoly with VeriSign and the TLD/ccTLD contracts to tight TLDs together in 
a very complex system. The problem is all this is purely artificial and 
will not hold for long confronted to any serious inclusive policy 
(inclusive means everyone: iCANN included) : inclusive name space, 
inclusive DNS with MultiBind, inclusive international understanding at the 
GAC, inclusive development technology, necessary inclusive legal system, 
even inclusive TM protection policy [as a small TM holder I am not happy 
with the WIPO approach], etc....

I suppose that you personnaly defend the statu quo by desire of network 
stability and I do respect that (I have exactly the same concern). But 
while you seem to think that stability is by statu quo; I think that this 
statu quo is the factor of instability unless we may have the iCANN 
reformed (and not replaced or suppressed).

Nobody serious wants the disapearance of the iCANN, but how do you want an 
unbalanced duopoly between Staff and VeriSign where Staff has no 
legitimacy, nor funding (except the .org revenue) and a dwindling number of 
allies and flock (look at China) to stay very long. This is mad house.

The only solution is to revise the iCANN in the way it should have been 
set: in making it the Association of the Internet Communities, ie the 
stability at its roots. This means a secretariat for the IP and the DNS+ 
matters supporting dialog on netwide interests through the DNSO and the ASO 
and dialong about stakeholders' interests though the @large. And a funding 
through the TLDs turn over (not on DNs as we have to consider free TLDs and 
new forms of TLDs, since I suppose your desire of statu quo does not 
opposes innovation).

Cheers.
Jefsey

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 20:01:17 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] iCANN's consensus by exclusion

Hi Jefsey

Would you mind re-posting the following to [ga-ext] External Relations which
has been set up especially to examine the consensus process?

I appreciate your views and would like to see them included in the relevant
debate.  This is perhaps best achieved by selecting the most appropriate
forum ;-)

Thank you.
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 7:14 PM
Subject: [ga] iCANN's consensus by exclusion

Dear Harald,

What you mean is the DNSO does not contribute with enough value, so we
should get rid of it.
What is certainly what Staff and some BoD are attempting.
 > On 10:24 30/04/01, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
 > In normal corporate activity, cost centers that do not contribute
appropriate value to the
 > effective function of the corporation are shut down; benefit to the
world outside the corporation > is normally not considered.
 > I do not think we want to encourage normal corporate procedures here.

I am afraid you just miss one point: without the DNSO/GA and the @large,
the iCANN has not the legal basis to exist.   iCANN has only been set-up to
manage consensus areas and to preserve TM name space stability. In trying
to preserve TM name space stability trough an increase of TM privileges it
meets conflicts it tries to solve in obtaining consensuses by exclusion.

This exclusion policy only makes sense if the excluding parties are
powerfull enough and solidly tight together: hence the Plan B to create a
duopoly with VeriSign and the TLD/ccTLD contracts to tight TLDs together in
a very complex system. The problem is all this is purely artificial and
will not hold for long confronted to any serious inclusive policy
(inclusive means everyone: iCANN included) : inclusive name space,
inclusive DNS with MultiBind, inclusive international understanding at the
GAC, inclusive development technology, necessary inclusive legal system,
even inclusive TM protection policy [as a small TM holder I am not happy
with the WIPO approach], etc....

I suppose that you personnaly defend the statu quo by desire of network
stability and I do respect that (I have exactly the same concern). But
while you seem to think that stability is by statu quo; I think that this
statu quo is the factor of instability unless we may have the iCANN
reformed (and not replaced or suppressed).

Nobody serious wants the disapearance of the iCANN, but how do you want an
unbalanced duopoly between Staff and VeriSign where Staff has no
legitimacy, nor funding (except the .org revenue) and a dwindling number of
allies and flock (look at China) to stay very long. This is mad house.

The only solution is to revise the iCANN in the way it should have been
set: in making it the Association of the Internet Communities, ie the
stability at its roots. This means a secretariat for the IP and the DNS+
matters supporting dialog on netwide interests through the DNSO and the ASO
and dialong about stakeholders' interests though the @large. And a funding
through the TLDs turn over (not on DNs as we have to consider free TLDs and
new forms of TLDs, since I suppose your desire of statu quo does not
opposes innovation).

Cheers.
Jefsey

- --
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 #429
************************