Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #433
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Friday, May 4 2001             Volume 01 : Number 433

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

Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 23:53:11 +0200 (CEST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

On Tue, 1 May 2001, at 21:47 [=GMT-0700], Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 02:01:54PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > >Note carefully:  he said "one vote per registered domain name".
> > 
> > ooops. You are right, I overlooked that. Your reply was justified.
> > Both my comments  withdrawn with apologies.
> > This makes Harald's 'possible form of representation' totally different
> > from the one I proposed. 
> 
> However, your proposal is really no better.  Notwithstanding the best
> efforts of the intellectual property interests, there still is no cheap
> and easy way to strongly bind a domain registration to a particular
> person or entity, and privacy advocates would go ballistic if there was
> one. 

So what? Some people with multiple domains will create fake
identities? Would that influence the outcome of any elections to a
relevant degree?

- -- 
[email-masked]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
 http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.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

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

Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 08:37:18 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

At 09:42 2/05/01 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
"
>- Proving that this is more reasonable than "you have a vote because you are
>   a human being".
>

It is human beings that ask for  representation, not lists of  hoarded
Domains.
With due respect, Harald, I have never heard of any proposal that would be
so open to abuse. 

- -joop
- --
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, 03 May 2001 08:28:46 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

At 21:47 1/05/01 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

>However, your proposal is really no better.  Notwithstanding the best
>efforts of the intellectual property interests, there still is no cheap
>and easy way to strongly bind a domain registration to a particular
>person or entity, and privacy advocates would go ballistic if there was
>one. 
>
My proposal is about representation in the DNSO. 
It is through representation that the differences between the IP "industry"
, the Registration industry and the Registrants (biz, personal and
non-commercial) need to be worked out.

 
- --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

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

Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 15:36:17 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 11:53:11PM +0200, [email-masked] wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2001, at 21:47 [=GMT-0700], Kent Crispin wrote:
> > However, your proposal is really no better.  Notwithstanding the best
> > efforts of the intellectual property interests, there still is no cheap
> > and easy way to strongly bind a domain registration to a particular
> > person or entity, and privacy advocates would go ballistic if there was
> > one. 
> 
> So what? Some people with multiple domains will create fake
> identities? Would that influence the outcome of any elections to a
> relevant degree?

Yes, it is quite possible.  Most people don't care about any of this 
stuff; a few thousand votes could be decisive.  There are many 
such scenarios, the most interesting of which is, perhaps, the 
participation of governments.  (The at-large elections demonstrated this 
most clearly.)

- --
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: Wed, 2 May 2001 20:05:52 -0400
From: "Gene Marsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Appendix U

Interesting that certain applicants were panned for not providing this
information openly (without confidentiality) during the application process
last year.

Gene...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Harald
> Tveit Alvestrand
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 8:08 AM
> To: Bret Fausett
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Appendix U
>
>
> At 22:24 30.04.2001 -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
> >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.
>
> Note that the most long-lasting confidentiality requirement in
> the Afilias
> contract (the one I checked) is 18 months, and covers ONLY reports that
> reveal how much money they used for advertising (sections 2.1 and 4.4).
>
> I think a fair amount of evaluation can be done without this info.
>
>
>
> >        -- 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
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 02 May 2001 19:55:51 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] This ain't right

comments follow the snips

Someone please direct this where it belongs in the sub lists;
Here are the rules ICANN *must* follow:
 IRS-PUB 557

OK, I am dumb.... Why did the Markle Foundation say in its Grant:
 1) Membership Program Manager - 6 months including benefits

$30,000
If we don't have any *Members*?? Did ICANN return the money?
http://www.icann.org/financials/markle-grant-letter-06mar00.htm

These were stolen from the list and were posted by a man far smarter,
ok, more focused than I.
I have tried to be a watcher more than a participant over the last few
days, I have read every post and comment from ICANNWATCH to the blog to
every listed and available ICANN list to icann-euro to netsol to the DoC
to the DoS to some spanish and .RU sites that have left me numb.

I have reviewed our own lists and that of task forces and WG's.  My goal
is to get ready and build a new ICANN or replace it with a corporation
ready to step into the void.  It is like studying the Titanic, the
Hindenburg and the edsol all rolled into one.  If the engineers set up
the perfect car and  politicians get to redisign it we are all in
trouble.

Our staff is a walking disaster waiting to happen.

Our tax and fund raising is a 200 mile or 270 kph head on crash.

Our PR should be held out as a perfect example of what not to do.

OTOH
we still maintain control,
we have great contacts,
we have huge contracts'
Somehow we can still kill our competetors even though we are not
supposed to have them.

But we are unethical and a rubber stamp for a few large corps.

Maybe watching is better, but I saw no one speak for us dotcommoners,
will no one step forward?

Sincerely,

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

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

Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 20:13:33 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Appendix U

No it is not interesting at all!  It is a damned abomination.  This is why I
screamed so hard about changing votin rules for the GA in progress. (believe it
or not I do not want to be chair).  This redefinition and convenient memory as
to established rules is the epitomy of bad faith and lack of due process.  It is
the reason for "going postal" unfairness is the greatest grieveance on earth and
believe me ICANN will feel that wrath lest it get it's -----together. Remember
Tienamen, the Wall, Kent State, book burning it is not the injury to the person
but the denial of right that causes the greatest amoung us, previously silent to
come forward and become a lady of honor.

Sincerely,

Gene Marsh wrote:

> Interesting that certain applicants were panned for not providing this
> information openly (without confidentiality) during the application process
> last year.
>
> Gene...
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Harald
> > Tveit Alvestrand
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 8:08 AM
> > To: Bret Fausett
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Appendix U
> >
> >
> > At 22:24 30.04.2001 -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
> > >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.
> >
> > Note that the most long-lasting confidentiality requirement in
> > the Afilias
> > contract (the one I checked) is 18 months, and covers ONLY reports that
> > reveal how much money they used for advertising (sections 2.1 and 4.4).
> >
> > I think a fair amount of evaluation can be done without this info.
> >
> >
> >
> > >        -- 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
> >
> > --
> > 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: Thu, 3 May 2001 07:31:15 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "David Hernand" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 22:31:09 -0700

New.net appreciates Mr. Stubbs bringing to our attention the problem
that he experienced with New.net's client application.  As many of you
are aware, we recently released a new version of our client application
that supports AOL users (using AOL's version of Internet Explorer) and
users sitting behind corporate firewalls.  The problem experienced by
Mr. Stubbs is a problem that affects a very small number of users and
appears to relate to the use of "transparent proxies" by certain
applications, such as Intel's Anypoint software.  We have identified a
technical solution that should avoid this problem going forward, and we
plan to release an updated version of our client application tomorrow.

As with any new software application, it is very difficult to predict
and test for all possible conflicts with other software applications 
despite extensive QA, but we are doing everything we can to promptly 
respond to such conflicts when they arise.  Thus far, we have received 
fewer than 10 customer complaints regarding our client out of over 
1,000,000 downloads.  The bug experienced by Mr. Stubbs really is no 
different from the types of bugs experienced by users that download 
software applications from Microsoft, Adobe, Netscape, Real Networks and

other leading software companies, and it's overkill to pronounce that
the 
existence of such bugs mean that all such companies contribute to 
"instability" of the Internet.  In the future, we invite Mr. Stubbs to 
contact our customer service department regarding any problems with our 
service instead of raising such issues first in domain name policy
forums.

As a side note, we regret that Mr. Stubbs was unaware that he had 
installed New.net's small client application.  Our website asks users to

click on "Click here to enable your browser to recognize New.net
domains!" 
and then click on "Yes" on the Verisign Active-X installer (or Java 
installer) security confirmation page before the client download occurs.

We welcome suggestions on how to make this process more clear to our 
users.  

David Hernand
CEO
New.net

David M. Hernand
CEO
New.net
Tel: 626.229.7808
Fax: 626.229.7801

- --
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, 3 May 2001 15:16:11 +1000
From: "Co-Chair, DNSO GA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Clarification] NO CROSS POSTING practices on the DNSO server

Thank you DNSO Secrretariat for keeping up informed particularly in the
light of the intriduction of six new mailing lists.

Members of the GA should, of course, be aware that cross-posting has never
been a permitted practice.  However some subscibers do get caught out.

One example is cross-posting to other constituencies like the NCDNHC.
Another is cross-posting to ICANN-EUROPE.  Please note that such postings
may bounce without notice to the person posting.

As well, cross-postings to other lists may well be manually moderated or
otherwise blocked by the other party's software.  I believe NetSol's Domain
Policy is one such example which disallows cross-posting.

Whilst it is reasonable to address a posting to a particular person, with a
copy to the list, I would suppose that most subscribers would prefer not to
receive multiple copies of the same posting.  There really is no need to cc
those who are already on the list.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss
Co-Chair, GA

- ----- Original Message -----
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 2:00 AM
Subject: [ga] [Clarification] NO CROSS POSTING practices on the DNSO server

>
>
> [ To: [email-masked] ]
> [ To: [email-masked] ]
>
> 1 May 2001.
>
> This is the summary of NO CROSS POSTING practices implemented
> on the DNSO server.
>
> A. NO CROSS POSTING Rules - implementation for the DNSO GA lists
>     (Main List and Specific Purposes Lists):
>
>    1. The no cross posting apply to ALL GA lists as well as
>       several well known other lists.
>    2. The end user (and maths) perspective prevails: if a person
>       subscribe to List-One, but NOT to List-Two, he/she does not
>       wish to get an e-mail from List-Two.
>    3. It was suggested each list to appoint a "rapporteur"
>       to provide periodic updates to the Main List.
>
> B. NO CROSS POSTING Rules - implementation for NC WGs lists:
>
>    1. The no cross posting apply to ALL WGs lists.
>    2. The end user (and maths) perspective prevails: if a person
>       subscribe to List-One, but NOT to List-Two, he/she does not
>       wish to get an e-mail from List-Two.
>    3. Each WGs has two Co-Chairs, one from the NC and one elected
>       by the group. The NC Co-Chair acts as liaison with the NC.
>
> C. POSTING Rules for the NC lists
>     (Main List and Specific Purposes Lists):
>
>    1. Only the NC members, DNSO Secretariat and Scribe, ICANN Board
>       and Staff, and the GA Chair and Alternate Chair are allowed
>       to post to the Names Council lists.
>    2. The NC Working Groups shall communicate with the NC through
>       "liaison co-Chair", who is the NC member.
>    3. The GA shall communicate with the NC through Chair or Alternate
>       Chair.
>    4. The NC may decide to adapt these posting rules at any time.
>
> D. POSTING Rules for the special purpose [email-masked] list:
>
>    1. Only the DNSO Secretariat may write to [email-masked] list.
>
>
>
> EASY TO REMEMBER:
>    1. In summary: more CC and To, less chances it gets to any of list.
>    2. If somebody is member to many lists and wishes to share some
>       topic with any of them he/she shall write to all of them separately.
>
> DNSO Secretariat
> --
> 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, 3 May 2001 20:32:39 +1000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS and AT-Large-Study

Hi all:

I note with interest that the At-Large-Membership is not mentioned in 
a "possible agenda" for ga-review. Although there is no 
membership, nor is there any structure in place for the so called At-
Large-Members, a study is being done to evaluate it.

I suggest that any kind or review of the ga should include analyzing 
its relationship with the At-Large-Membership.

I am also urging members of the GA to provide comments on the 
ongoing At-Large-Study, which after all has to deal with the entire 
representation structure of ICANN!!

www.atlargestudy.org
there is a public comment forum
 
Best,
CA

[email-masked]             
www.naisproject.org

Giessener Pforte 39                       
35440 Linden                              
Germany
Mobile: 0049 +171 581 3662

Different versions of cyberspace support different kinds of dreams. We choose wisely, or not.
- --
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, 03 May 2001 14:00:26 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] HOWCANN YOU LOSE VERIFICATION 1.3 MIL?

THIS HERE IS A CUT OUT OF ICANN'S OFFICIAL INDEPENDENT AUDIT AT;
http://www.icann.org/financials/financial-report-fye-30jun00-letter.htm

<<    We were unable to obtain sufficient verifiable evidence supporting
certain Country Code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) accounts receivable
totaling $1,355,000 at June 30, 2000 or the related registry fee
revenue, which is included in the change in net assets for the year then
ended as described in note 2 to the financial statements; nor were we
able to satisfy ourselves as to the adequacy of the allowance for
doubtful accounts related to these receivables.

    In our opinion, except for the effects of such adjustments, if any,
as might have been determined to be necessary had we been able to
examine verifiable supporting evidence regarding the accounts
receivable, allowance for doubtful accounts and related registry fees,
as discussed in the third paragraph of this report, the financial
statements referred to in the first paragraph above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers as of June 30, 2000 and the changes
    in its net assets and its cash flows for the year then ended in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America.>>

Now I just want one or two of you to march right into your tax office
and explain that you do not have the documents for, oh say roughly, a
third of your income so you ain't gonna pay on it because you should be
a non-profit.  And these guys want to suspend voting rights for a
constituency that has not paid 15 grand.

- --
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, 03 May 2001 19:36:29 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] HOWCANN YOU LOSE VERIFICATION 1.3 MIL?

Danged I wish it were so black and white.  But the problem is that the Mr.
Roberts you refer to has clearly never read section 557 dealing with
acceptable income for non-profits, pages 22-30.

The next item of denial is that he think they have solved the problem -
wrong.  The problem does not really occur from loss it occurs from the fact
that ICANN can not verify the income because they have no contracts for the
income, remember ccTLDs have no contracts yet and so there is technically and
legally no accounts receivables.
But there is the rub until they have contracts with the ccTLDs they cannot
possibly comply with proper reporting concepts.

The whole next issue is qualified income versus charges which are not
non-profit and do not fit into the 10% 31% and 51% tests and require
disqualification.

The next issue requires evaluation the fact that know permanent certificate
has been issued, only a forward looking temporary.

Of course I am only a a lowly, JD and certified taxpayer representative but
that ain't no legal opinion IANAL.

Sincerely,

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Eric and all assembly members,
>
>   This is some sort of auditing procedure that I certainly am not familiar
> with!
> Possibly I should bring this to the attention of the IRS?
>
>   And yes isn't it interesting that the inability to account of $1.3m and
> still have the gall to demand $15k from the NCDHHC is a real peace
> of work isn't it?  Maybe this is why yesterday on the NCDNHC and the
> ICANN-Europe list that Mike Roberts wanted to deflect other inquiries
> and denotations in their financial records by going into a denial rage?
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > THIS HERE IS A CUT OUT OF ICANN'S OFFICIAL INDEPENDENT AUDIT AT;
> > http://www.icann.org/financials/financial-report-fye-30jun00-letter.htm
> >
> > <<    We were unable to obtain sufficient verifiable evidence supporting
> > certain Country Code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) accounts receivable
> > totaling $1,355,000 at June 30, 2000 or the related registry fee
> > revenue, which is included in the change in net assets for the year then
> > ended as described in note 2 to the financial statements; nor were we
> > able to satisfy ourselves as to the adequacy of the allowance for
> > doubtful accounts related to these receivables.
> >
> >     In our opinion, except for the effects of such adjustments, if any,
> > as might have been determined to be necessary had we been able to
> > examine verifiable supporting evidence regarding the accounts
> > receivable, allowance for doubtful accounts and related registry fees,
> > as discussed in the third paragraph of this report, the financial
> > statements referred to in the first paragraph above present fairly, in
> > all material respects, the financial position of Internet Corporation
> > for Assigned Names and Numbers as of June 30, 2000 and the changes
> >     in its net assets and its cash flows for the year then ended in
> > conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
> > States of America.>>
> >
> > Now I just want one or two of you to march right into your tax office
> > and explain that you do not have the documents for, oh say roughly, a
> > third of your income so you ain't gonna pay on it because you should be
> > a non-profit.  And these guys want to suspend voting rights for a
> > constituency that has not paid 15 grand.
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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 #433
************************