Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #438
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Monday, May 7 2001             Volume 01 : Number 438

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

Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 07:13:27 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] domain name owner's bill of rights

I would like to know who that registrar is, so i do not try to use them in
the future.

Publication of such information may cause them to modify their behaviour.

peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Srikanth
Narra
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 6:03 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] domain name owner's bill of rights

Thanks Patrick/Eric

So far no one got back to me on the issue per se.

On positive side :

NSI, sent me the invoices and renewal notices in a hurry within few hours of
posting to this list. (my thanks to whoever made it happen)

On negative side :

I just come across Register who held up my domain transfer to other
registers after receiving my explicit transfer approval. So they can make
counter-offer to stay on with them.

To top things, I found out they denied my transfer because I did not respond
to their counter offer in time.

Is it even legal to do this ?

Either a working group or a request for comments to domain name owners would
be a very good idea.

Sri

On Thu, 26 April 2001, "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" 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, 07 May 2001 22:01:29 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN holders' constituency (IC)

Since the Chair has now opened the floor for motions I would like to start off
with this one:

Motion for the Recognition of an Individuals' Constituency (IC)

Considering the majority vote  expressed by the physically assembled GA in
Santiago and Yokohama,

considering the support expressed by the Association of Computing Machinery
(ACM) since Berlin 1999 and by the non commercial constituency of the DNSO for
an Individuals' constituency, since Santiago 2000,

considering the Voting of the members of the DNSO-review working group  on
this
subject,

considering the petition made by the first Steering Committee of  the IDNO
which reads as follows
August 11, 1999
To the members of the Board of Directors of the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 
Marina del Rey, CA 90292 
USA.
L.S.,
This letter constitutes a reiteration of our public petition of 23 April, 1999
under Article VI-B, Section 3(d) of the ICANN bylaws for recognition of the
Individual Domain Name Owner’s constituency (the IDNO) as a Constituency of
ICANN’s Domain Name Supporting Organization (the DNSO.)

The IDNO was formed in April 1999. It is a self-organized, primarily member
funded, highly international constituency, springing from no pre-existing
organizations or structures. Yet its membership is already larger than of any
of the existing DNSO Constituencies. And we expect that the IDNO's membership
will grow rapidly once the IDNO is a recognized constituency.

IDNO members are active participants in ICANN, having attended several of
ICANN’s meetings.

Our members come from many parts of the world.

IDNO members are active participants in the DNSO’s General Assembly and in the
DNSO’s various working groups.

The IDNO maintains a site on the World Wide Web at http://www.idno.org/
containing a members’ list, charter, archive of on-line discussions, voting
system, and other materials and resources.

The IDNO has a public, archived e-mail discussion list.

The IDNO is the only constituency with a fully operational electronic voting
system that has been repeatedly and successfully used to guide the IDNO as it
evolves.

The purpose the IDNO is to give a voice to those individuals who “own” domain
names.
The IDNO’s focus is on individuals, not on corporations or organizations. The
IDNO does not care whether a member is a businessperson, a teacher, an artist,
or a person using the Internet to express his or her opinions.

Because essentially all of the existing DNSO constituencies are open only to
corporations and organizations, these individuals have no way but the IDNO to
fully participate within the DNSO.

We must mention that membership in the DNSO General Assembly, although
nominally open to individuals, is no substitute for having a Constituency to
defend Individuals' domain name interests. It is only through the IDNO as a
recognized Constituency that individual domain name owners can participate
with
a full and peer voice on the DNSO’s names council.

Why should the Individuals be represented in the DNSO?
·       Registrations of domain names by individuals represent a large
number of
all domain name registrations. A study conducted by Network Solutions
estimates
that within the United States alone, 10% of the domain names registered in the
.com, .net, and .org domains are registered to individuals. Further, there is
evidence to indicate that the percentage may be increasing. This leads to an
estimated 300,000 individual domain names owners in .com, .net, and .org
within
the United States alone. The number worldwide, especially when in all top
level
domains are considered, could be substantially higher. 
·       Every one of these hundreds of thousands of people have a significant
and well defined interest in the operation and development of the domain name
system and the Internet. Yet none of these hundreds of thousands of people are
eligible to be admitted to any of the other constituencies. 
·       Domains owned by individuals are often used for both commercial and
non-commercial purposes. Individuals can not be adequately represented in
either "business" or "non-commercial" constituencies. It is our feeling
that as
the net grows it will become quite common for personal hobbies to evolve into
significant business entities. 
·       The IDNO is the only constituency that would provide a voice for these
people. 
·       Interests and concerns of Individual Domain name Owners typically
do not
coincide with the Interests and concerns of the other constituencies
represented in the DNSO. Indeed, in many cases their interests are in
conflict.
Thus it is necessary for there to be a constituency with a clear focus on the
needs of individual domain name owners. 
·       Without a clear and fully empowered place for individual domain name
owners, the DNSO will be a weak and limited body, speaking for only part of
the
Internet community. 
The IDNO has adopted an inclusive approach to its membership. Unlike other
Constituencies which require that a candidate for membership be a corporation
or an organization, or be engaged in a particular type of business, the IDNO
simply looks at whether a candidate “owns” a domain name.
The IDNO measures ownership not by legal formalisms, but rather by a pragmatic
evaluation whether the candidate has sufficient elements of control over a
domain name that it amounts to what reasonable people would consider to be
ownership. Our membership rules permit membership even when the domain name
owner owns the name through a intermediary, such as a corporation or trust,
that is fully under the control of the candidate.
The IDNO has evolved beyond a gathering of people. The IDNO has both an
elected
Steering Committee and a Membership Committee. The IDNO is an early, and
perhaps the first successful experiment in broadly based democratic
participation within ICANN.
The IDNO brings to ICANN the concerns of the individual domain name owner,
concerns that have so far lacked an advocate.

(appendices omitted: for the complete petition and its signatories, see
www.idno.org/petition.htm)

considering that the ICANN  Board has until now refrained from responding in
public to this petition and from publishing it on its website for public
comment,

considering the Bylaws art. VI, section 3 (d) that reads:

(d) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for
recognition
as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition will be posted for public
comment pursuant to Article III, Section 3. The Board may create new
Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its own motion, if it
determines that such action would serve the purposes of the Corporation. 

I move that the GA will express its support for the immediate acknowledgement 
of an Individuals' Constituency by the Board in accordance with its Bylaws.

I move that this support will take the form of a GA Resolution recommending
that
the Board will  place either the creation of such an IC or the "approval in
principle" on its Agenda for a decision in Stockholm.

Respectfully 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

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

Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 07:46:17 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights

Two issues:

1. ICANN could cover costs of DNSO, simply by including those costs in the
annual budget. I am on the budget task force, or whatever it is called.
There has been, to data, no official request from NC or DNSO to include such
a budget item. There _could be_, though, in the future, if the NC/DNSO
wishes.

2. Meanwhile, I agree with Harald. the DN "Supporting Organization" is,
under current structure, supporting itself. One must "pay to play". Many
non-commercial organizations pay lawyers and lobbyists, pay to have their
representatives travel to meetings, stay in 4 star hotels, etc. All that
high-powered executive talent should be able to raise US $ 15 to $ 20
thousand a year. IN fact, if asked, I would donate funds to the NCC.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Harald
Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 10:32 AM
To: babybows.com
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Suspension of Voting Rights

It is not obvious to me either that ICANN can reasonably be asked to cover
the cost of DNSO operation or that the DNSO can permit those who refuse to
follow DNSO rules to continue to take part in DNSO decision making, even
when those rules involve paying money to cover DNSO operation.

This viewpoint may be unpopular.

- --
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, 7 May 2001 13:59:01 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Second WIPO process

Sorry for a typo in my message of May 2nd, about WIPO 2 documents.
It is in http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/rfc/rfc3/index.html
(html at the end)

Elisabeth

http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/index.html
     The third Request for Comments - the Interim Report - in 
     the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process (WIPO2 RFC-3) 
     has now been published, and all interested parties are 
     invited to submit comments. The deadline for comments is June 8, 2001.

April-May Regional Consultations places:
     April 23, 2001 Brussels, Belgium 
     April 26, 2001 Accra, Ghana 
     May 10, 2001 Buenos Aires, Argentina 
     May 24, 2001 Melbourne, Australia 
     May 29, 2001 Washington, D.C., United States of America  
     May 30, 2001 Valencia, Spain 

- --
> From [email-masked] Wed May  2 00:14 MET 2001
> Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 00:12:11 +0200 (MET DST)
> From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [process2] Re: [ga] WIPO's Best Practices for ccTLDs
> 
> 
> [ cc: <[email-masked]> suppressed, I am not on that list ]
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> I have been assisting at WIPO2 presentation and debate in Brussels
> on 23rd of April.
> 
> The Second WIPO process is to protect public names for public interest.
> 
> The Interim Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process has
> now been published for comment. It is available at
> http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/rfc/rfc3/index.htm
> 
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> --

- --
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, 7 May 2001 14:14:46 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Reminder: NC telecon 9 May, agenda

Reminder: NC telecon 9 May 2001, agenda

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

The agenda has been published in
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010509.NCtelecon-agenda.html

The telephone numbers for the NC teleconference call are:
(6:00 LA, 9:00 New York, 15:00 Paris, 22:00 Japan/Korea, 23:00 Melbourne)

Dial in number: +1 630-395-0028 (US number) 

Passcode #: 8853 

Conference operator: WorldCom 

Conference convener: Theresa Swinehart

10 ports "listen only" will be reserved for remote participants 

The full participants are the 19 NC members as listed in 
http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html, 
DNSO Secretariat, ICANN Officers and Invited Guests 

The conference Scribe will be Maca Jamin 

The conference MPEG3 recording will be provided by Bret Fausett 

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, 07 May 2001 10:54:45 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Commerce to scrutinize VeriSign's grip on Web

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0D6E4.20D15090
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Commerce to scrutinize VeriSign's grip on Web:

 http://washington.bcentral.com/washington/stories/2001/05/07/story4.html

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0D6E4.20D15090
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=3D3>
<H1><FONT size=3D3><FONT size=3D1>
<P>Commerce to scrutinize VeriSign's grip on=20
Web:</P></FONT></FONT></H1></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT size=3D2></FONT><BR>&nbsp;<A=20
href=3D"http://washington.bcentral.com/washington/stories/2001/05/07/stor=
y4.html">http://washington.bcentral.com/washington/stories/2001/05/07/sto=
ry4.html</A></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>/Bruce</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0D6E4.20D15090--

- --
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, 7 May 2001 09:24:00 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Reply to William

In the tone of another list that I am on ... how does this help me configure
my router? In this context, ... how does this help me configure my DNS?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sotiris [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 9:10 PM
> To: babybows.com
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Reply to William
> 
> 
> "babybows.com" wrote:
> 
> > <snip>.. I am pleased to see that you share the opinions of 
> others on the
> > ga-list (that
> > these are individuals that would prefer to work outside of 
> the framework of
> > the DNSO on other mailing lists is another matter entirely).
> 
> True.
> 
> That you (as Chair of the GA) encouraged others to work 
> outside of the framework
> of
> the DNSO on other mailing lists is also another matter entirely...
> 
> With all due respect Mr. Chair, you disappoint.
> 
> Good Luck to All,
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> 
> P.S. Danny, enjoy your Pyrrhic victory.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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, 7 May 2001 09:41:24 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  Complaint

> From: babybows.com [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 1:25 PM
> 
> Eric Dierker writes:  "The real point is that if the NC and 
> BoD are intent
> on allowing a IDNH all they have to do is grant the 
> foreplaced petition.
> Why hasn't Karl done such a thing in a formal motion?"
> 
> Perhaps the Board is not intent on allowing an IDNH.  Perhaps 
> the arguments
> for an IDNH have not yet completely swayed the Board.

Please note FWIW, Karl Auerbach was also one of the original supporters of
the IDNO.

> Perhaps they are ...

The remainder is sheer speculation in which, it is unseemly for the
leadership to indulge, IMHO. I submit that one of the problems herein is
rampant speculation on insufficient facts. This is especially true wrt
individual motives and "hidden agendii". Stopping that is, of course,
unrealistic. However, reducing that volume on the lists, should be a goal.
This cannot be accomplished if the leadership contributes to such idle
speculations themselves.

- --
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, 7 May 2001 09:43:50 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Agenda Item -- Budget

Wait a holdit! Registrars may accreditation fees, suffer the certification
audits, and still can't display the certification logo without paying yet
another fee?!?!

IMHO, this is more than highly irregular.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Gardner [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 10:04 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Agenda Item -- Budget
> 
> 
> At 12:52 am -0400 5/6/01, babybows.com wrote:
> >The registrar constituency has prepared an eighteen-page 
> report detailing
> >elements of the upcoming proposed 2000-2001 ICANN Budget.
> >
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00026.doc
> >
> >
> >As funding will be an agenda item in Stockholm, perhaps (to echo the
> >comments of Raul Echebarria on the ncdnhc list), this is the 
> right moment to
> >strongly propose that the DNSO's budget be included in 
> ICANN's budget.
> 
> Given that ICANN has recently demanded that Registrars remove 
> the ICANN
> logo from their sites until ICANN presents them with a 
> logo-licensing deal,
> I'd say this is the right moment.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andrew P. Gardner
> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform 
> about the UDRP?
> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
> --
> 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, 07 May 2001 12:46:49 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reply to William

And how does your message help me set the TTL configuration for my
router?

Is there some personal issue here we should know about?

Your message to the List is quite interesting considering you are
contributing to
what you're apparently condemning.

In any case, the GA of the DNSO is primarily a POLICY oriented forum,
no?

I suspect that if the Chair were pointing people to work outside the
framework of the DNSO, that this has political (i.e. policy)
ramifications.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> In the tone of another list that I am on ... how does this help me configure
> my router? In this context, ... how does this help me configure my DNS?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sotiris [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 9:10 PM
> > To: babybows.com
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Reply to William
> >
> >
> > "babybows.com" wrote:
> >
> > > <snip>.. I am pleased to see that you share the opinions of
> > others on the
> > > ga-list (that
> > > these are individuals that would prefer to work outside of
> > the framework of
> > > the DNSO on other mailing lists is another matter entirely).
> >
> > True.
> >
> > That you (as Chair of the GA) encouraged others to work
> > outside of the framework
> > of
> > the DNSO on other mailing lists is also another matter entirely...
> >
> > With all due respect Mr. Chair, you disappoint.
> >
> > Good Luck to All,
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >
> > P.S. Danny, enjoy your Pyrrhic victory.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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, 7 May 2001 13:39:24 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN  holders'constituency (IC)

Eric:

IMO, the at-large is the place for non-domain name holders.  The DNSO 
is the domain name supporting organization and it makes sense that 
there should be an individual domain name holders constituency, if 
there are to be constituencies at all.

Leah

On 7 May 2001, at 7:13, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Now I see the reason this is a non-starter.
> 
> Domain Name Holder(s) and Individual(s) are two distinct groups.  I do not
> own a Domain Name Hence I am an individual.  Joop owns a domain name hence,
> while of course he is an individual, he is a Domain Name Holder. 
> Corporations can be Domain Name Holders but not individuals, Registrars and
> Registries can be holders but not individuals.  Individuals without domain
> names, and by shear numbers this is the vast majority of
> internetstakeholders, cannot and presumably do not want to be domain name
> holders.
> 
> Believe it or not most of us net consumers want our ISPs to handle that
> kind of thing.  When you sign up for cable service here in California - the
> home of ICANN - you can get anything you want including website hosting
> without registering a domain name, you really just check a bunch of boxes
> and it is done. (and it costs about the same as premium TV service)
> 
> Just like many of us with our cars, we just take them to the mechanic. 
> Don't think for a second that that means we don't vote for and participate
> in law making and policy regarding our precious cars, but we leave
> mechanics to the mechanics.
> 
> You see in my suspension I was cited for not contributing to the technical
> aspects of the discussion.  There is no club within ICANN I can join as an
> Individual who does not contribute to the technical issues.  Do not places
> me with you guys who just want to protect your domain names.
> 
> Please review the discussions on Bill of Rights.  It is as though most just
> assume that the BoRs does not apply to individuals without domain names
> (just like woman and slaves in the U.S. prior to later sufferage)
> 
> DO NOT PLACE REAL INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE GROUP FOR DOMAIN NAME HOLDERS
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Joop Teernstra wrote:
> 
> > Since the Chair has now opened the floor for motions I would like to
> > start off with this one:
> >
> > Motion for the Recognition of an Individuals' Constituency (IC)
> >
> > Considering the majority vote  expressed by the physically assembled GA
> > in Santiago and Yokohama,
> >
> > considering the support expressed by the Association of Computing
> > Machinery (ACM) since Berlin 1999 and by the non commercial constituency
> > of the DNSO for an Individuals' constituency, since Santiago 2000,
> >
> > considering the Voting of the members of the DNSO-review working group 
> > on this subject,
> >
> > considering the petition made by the first Steering Committee of  the
> > IDNO which reads as follows August 11, 1999 To the members of the Board
> > of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> > (ICANN) 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 USA. L.S.,
> > This letter constitutes a reiteration of our public petition of 23 April,
> > 1999 under Article VI-B, Section 3(d) of the ICANN bylaws for recognition
> > of the Individual Domain Name Owner’s constituency (the IDNO) as a
> > Constituency of ICANN’s Domain Name Supporting Organization (the DNSO.)
> >
> > The IDNO was formed in April 1999. It is a self-organized, primarily
> > member funded, highly international constituency, springing from no
> > pre-existing organizations or structures. Yet its membership is already
> > larger than of any of the existing DNSO Constituencies. And we expect
> > that the IDNO's membership will grow rapidly once the IDNO is a
> > recognized constituency.
> >
> > IDNO members are active participants in ICANN, having attended several of
> > ICANN’s meetings.
> >
> > Our members come from many parts of the world.
> >
> > IDNO members are active participants in the DNSO’s General Assembly and
> > in the DNSO’s various working groups.
> >
> > The IDNO maintains a site on the World Wide Web at http://www.idno.org/
> > containing a members’ list, charter, archive of on-line discussions,
> > voting system, and other materials and resources.
> >
> > The IDNO has a public, archived e-mail discussion list.
> >
> > The IDNO is the only constituency with a fully operational electronic
> > voting system that has been repeatedly and successfully used to guide the
> > IDNO as it evolves.
> >
> > The purpose the IDNO is to give a voice to those individuals who “own”
> > domain names. The IDNO’s focus is on individuals, not on corporations or
> > organizations. The IDNO does not care whether a member is a
> > businessperson, a teacher, an artist, or a person using the Internet to
> > express his or her opinions.
> >
> > Because essentially all of the existing DNSO constituencies are open only
> > to corporations and organizations, these individuals have no way but the
> > IDNO to fully participate within the DNSO.
> >
> > We must mention that membership in the DNSO General Assembly, although
> > nominally open to individuals, is no substitute for having a Constituency
> > to defend Individuals' domain name interests. It is only through the IDNO
> > as a recognized Constituency that individual domain name owners can
> > participate with a full and peer voice on the DNSO’s names council.
> >
> > Why should the Individuals be represented in the DNSO?
> > ·       Registrations of domain names by individuals represent a large
> > number of all domain name registrations. A study conducted by Network
> > Solutions estimates that within the United States alone, 10% of the
> > domain names registered in the .com, .net, and .org domains are
> > registered to individuals. Further, there is evidence to indicate that
> > the percentage may be increasing. This leads to an estimated 300,000
> > individual domain names owners in .com, .net, and .org within the United
> > States alone. The number worldwide, especially when in all top level
> > domains are considered, could be substantially higher. ·       Every one
> > of these hundreds of thousands of people have a significant and well
> > defined interest in the operation and development of the domain name
> > system and the Internet. Yet none of these hundreds of thousands of
> > people are eligible to be admitted to any of the other constituencies. · 
> >      Domains owned by individuals are often used for both commercial and
> > non-commercial purposes. Individuals can not be adequately represented in
> > either "business" or "non-commercial" constituencies. It is our feeling
> > that as the net grows it will become quite common for personal hobbies to
> > evolve into significant business entities. ·       The IDNO is the only
> > constituency that would provide a voice for these people. ·      
> > Interests and concerns of Individual Domain name Owners typically do not
> > coincide with the Interests and concerns of the other constituencies
> > represented in the DNSO. Indeed, in many cases their interests are in
> > conflict. Thus it is necessary for there to be a constituency with a
> > clear focus on the needs of individual domain name owners. ·      
> > Without a clear and fully empowered place for individual domain name
> > owners, the DNSO will be a weak and limited body, speaking for only part
> > of the Internet community. The IDNO has adopted an inclusive approach to
> > its membership. Unlike other Constituencies which require that a
> > candidate for membership be a corporation or an organization, or be
> > engaged in a particular type of business, the IDNO simply looks at
> > whether a candidate “owns” a domain name. The IDNO measures ownership not
> > by legal formalisms, but rather by a pragmatic evaluation whether the
> > candidate has sufficient elements of control over a domain name that it
> > amounts to what reasonable people would consider to be ownership. Our
> > membership rules permit membership even when the domain name owner owns
> > the name through a intermediary, such as a corporation or trust, that is
> > fully under the control of the candidate. The IDNO has evolved beyond a
> > gathering of people. The IDNO has both an elected Steering Committee and
> > a Membership Committee. The IDNO is an early, and perhaps the first
> > successful experiment in broadly based democratic participation within
> > ICANN. The IDNO brings to ICANN the concerns of the individual domain
> > name owner, concerns that have so far lacked an advocate.
> >
> > (appendices omitted: for the complete petition and its signatories, see
> > www.idno.org/petition.htm)
> >
> > considering that the ICANN  Board has until now refrained from responding
> > in public to this petition and from publishing it on its website for
> > public comment,
> >
> > considering the Bylaws art. VI, section 3 (d) that reads:
> >
> > (d) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for
> > recognition
> > as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition will be posted for
> > public comment pursuant to Article III, Section 3. The Board may create
> > new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its own motion,
> > if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of the
> > Corporation.
> >
> > I move that the GA will express its support for the immediate
> > acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency by the Board in
> > accordance with its Bylaws.
> >
> > I move that this support will take the form of a GA Resolution
> > recommending that the Board will  place either the creation of such an IC
> > or the "approval in principle" on its Agenda for a decision in Stockholm.
> >
> > Respectfully 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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 11:40:24 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MOTION: Request for a GA resolution on an IDN   holders'constituency (IC)

All three of Eric Dierker, Leah, and Joop are making a lot of sense here.
The distinction Eric makes between individuals who own domain names
and those who do not is meaningful and significant.  The constituencies
for the two groups are at hand: Leah is right in saying that the at-large
is the place for those who don't own domain names, and that answers
the question I raised a few days ago about why have both an IDNO
and an at-large.  The IDNO as promulgated by Joop is the place --
duh! -- for "individual domain name owners," and I believe that it
should be established as a constituency -- at long last.

I regard myself as an individual -- duh! -- who has an interest in the
broad issues of the internet, and would feel at home with others who
are concerned with the spectre of domain name collisions and all
that -- such events will affect people whether or not they own a
domain name.  I also have an interest in such things as UDRP and
WIPO, etc., as a domain name owner.  That is a narrower interest
in the sense that it could affect the specific issue of my ownership
and protection of particular domain names -- issues that would have
no direct bearing on my use of the internet and trying to find some
domain I heard about and all that.

Nothing in the above should be taken to imply that any individual
could not participate within both constituencies; no laws against
that, so far as I know. Corporations would not qualify.

(Which raises a question: I've had the domain cerebalaw.com for
quite a few years now, in support of my law practice as an individual.
I'm about to enter into a Limited Liability Corporation with two other
patent attorneys, for which we have registered the domain name
aljpatents.com, and a lot of the stuff from the former is likely to show
up in the latter. Does that throw me into the "corporate" category? I
don't think so.)

Good piece of work by all three parties.

Bill Lovell

L Gallegos wrote:

> Eric:
>
> IMO, the at-large is the place for non-domain name holders.  The DNSO
> is the domain name supporting organization and it makes sense that
> there should be an individual domain name holders constituency, if
> there are to be constituencies at all.
>
> Leah
>
> On 7 May 2001, at 7:13, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Now I see the reason this is a non-starter.
> >
> > Domain Name Holder(s) and Individual(s) are two distinct groups.  I do not
> > own a Domain Name Hence I am an individual.  Joop owns a domain name hence,
> > while of course he is an individual, he is a Domain Name Holder.
> > Corporations can be Domain Name Holders but not individuals, Registrars and
> > Registries can be holders but not individuals.  Individuals without domain
> > names, and by shear numbers this is the vast majority of
> > internetstakeholders, cannot and presumably do not want to be domain name
> > holders.
> >
> > Believe it or not most of us net consumers want our ISPs to handle that
> > kind of thing.  When you sign up for cable service here in California - the
> > home of ICANN - you can get anything you want including website hosting
> > without registering a domain name, you really just check a bunch of boxes
> > and it is done. (and it costs about the same as premium TV service)
> >
> > Just like many of us with our cars, we just take them to the mechanic.
> > Don't think for a second that that means we don't vote for and participate
> > in law making and policy regarding our precious cars, but we leave
> > mechanics to the mechanics.
> >
> > You see in my suspension I was cited for not contributing to the technical
> > aspects of the discussion.  There is no club within ICANN I can join as an
> > Individual who does not contribute to the technical issues.  Do not places
> > me with you guys who just want to protect your domain names.
> >
> > Please review the discussions on Bill of Rights.  It is as though most just
> > assume that the BoRs does not apply to individuals without domain names
> > (just like woman and slaves in the U.S. prior to later sufferage)
> >
> > DO NOT PLACE REAL INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE GROUP FOR DOMAIN NAME HOLDERS
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >
> > > Since the Chair has now opened the floor for motions I would like to
> > > start off with this one:
> > >
> > > Motion for the Recognition of an Individuals' Constituency (IC)
> > >
> > > Considering the majority vote  expressed by the physically assembled GA
> > > in Santiago and Yokohama,
> > >
> > > considering the support expressed by the Association of Computing
> > > Machinery (ACM) since Berlin 1999 and by the non commercial constituency
> > > of the DNSO for an Individuals' constituency, since Santiago 2000,
> > >
> > > considering the Voting of the members of the DNSO-review working group
> > > on this subject,
> > >
> > > considering the petition made by the first Steering Committee of  the
> > > IDNO which reads as follows August 11, 1999 To the members of the Board
> > > of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> > > (ICANN) 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 USA. L.S.,
> > > This letter constitutes a reiteration of our public petition of 23 April,
> > > 1999 under Article VI-B, Section 3(d) of the ICANN bylaws for recognition
> > > of the Individual Domain Name Owner’s constituency (the IDNO) as a
> > > Constituency of ICANN’s Domain Name Supporting Organization (the DNSO.)
> > >
> > > The IDNO was formed in April 1999. It is a self-organized, primarily
> > > member funded, highly international constituency, springing from no
> > > pre-existing organizations or structures. Yet its membership is already
> > > larger than of any of the existing DNSO Constituencies. And we expect
> > > that the IDNO's membership will grow rapidly once the IDNO is a
> > > recognized constituency.
> > >
> > > IDNO members are active participants in ICANN, having attended several of
> > > ICANN’s meetings.
> > >
> > > Our members come from many parts of the world.
> > >
> > > IDNO members are active participants in the DNSO’s General Assembly and
> > > in the DNSO’s various working groups.
> > >
> > > The IDNO maintains a site on the World Wide Web at http://www.idno.org/
> > > containing a members’ list, charter, archive of on-line discussions,
> > > voting system, and other materials and resources.
> > >
> > > The IDNO has a public, archived e-mail discussion list.
> > >
> > > The IDNO is the only constituency with a fully operational electronic
> > > voting system that has been repeatedly and successfully used to guide the
> > > IDNO as it evolves.
> > >
> > > The purpose the IDNO is to give a voice to those individuals who “own”
> > > domain names. The IDNO’s focus is on individuals, not on corporations or
> > > organizations. The IDNO does not care whether a member is a
> > > businessperson, a teacher, an artist, or a person using the Internet to
> > > express his or her opinions.
> > >
> > > Because essentially all of the existing DNSO constituencies are open only
> > > to corporations and organizations, these individuals have no way but the
> > > IDNO to fully participate within the DNSO.
> > >
> > > We must mention that membership in the DNSO General Assembly, although
> > > nominally open to individuals, is no substitute for having a Constituency
> > > to defend Individuals' domain name interests. It is only through the IDNO
> > > as a recognized Constituency that individual domain name owners can
> > > participate with a full and peer voice on the DNSO’s names council.
> > >
> > > Why should the Individuals be represented in the DNSO?
> > > ·       Registrations of domain names by individuals represent a large
> > > number of all domain name registrations. A study conducted by Network
> > > Solutions estimates that within the United States alone, 10% of the
> > > domain names registered in the .com, .net, and .org domains are
> > > registered to individuals. Further, there is evidence to indicate that
> > > the percentage may be increasing. This leads to an estimated 300,000
> > > individual domain names owners in .com, .net, and .org within the United
> > > States alone. The number worldwide, especially when in all top level
> > > domains are considered, could be substantially higher. ·       Every one
> > > of these hundreds of thousands of people have a significant and well
> > > defined interest in the operation and development of the domain name
> > > system and the Internet. Yet none of these hundreds of thousands of
> > > people are eligible to be admitted to any of the other constituencies. ·
> > >      Domains owned by individuals are often used for both commercial and
> > > non-commercial purposes. Individuals can not be adequately represented in
> > > either "business" or "non-commercial" constituencies. It is our feeling
> > > that as the net grows it will become quite common for personal hobbies to
> > > evolve into significant business entities. ·       The IDNO is the only
> > > constituency that would provide a voice for these people. ·
> > > Interests and concerns of Individual Domain name Owners typically do not
> > > coincide with the Interests and concerns of the other constituencies
> > > represented in the DNSO. Indeed, in many cases their interests are in
> > > conflict. Thus it is necessary for there to be a constituency with a
> > > clear focus on the needs of individual domain name owners. ·
> > > Without a clear and fully empowered place for individual domain name
> > > owners, the DNSO will be a weak and limited body, speaking for only part
> > > of the Internet community. The IDNO has adopted an inclusive approach to
> > > its membership. Unlike other Constituencies which require that a
> > > candidate for membership be a corporation or an organization, or be
> > > engaged in a particular type of business, the IDNO simply looks at
> > > whether a candidate “owns” a domain name. The IDNO measures ownership not
> > > by legal formalisms, but rather by a pragmatic evaluation whether the
> > > candidate has sufficient elements of control over a domain name that it
> > > amounts to what reasonable people would consider to be ownership. Our
> > > membership rules permit membership even when the domain name owner owns
> > > the name through a intermediary, such as a corporation or trust, that is
> > > fully under the control of the candidate. The IDNO has evolved beyond a
> > > gathering of people. The IDNO has both an elected Steering Committee and
> > > a Membership Committee. The IDNO is an early, and perhaps the first
> > > successful experiment in broadly based democratic participation within
> > > ICANN. The IDNO brings to ICANN the concerns of the individual domain
> > > name owner, concerns that have so far lacked an advocate.
> > >
> > > (appendices omitted: for the complete petition and its signatories, see
> > > www.idno.org/petition.htm)
> > >
> > > considering that the ICANN  Board has until now refrained from responding
> > > in public to this petition and from publishing it on its website for
> > > public comment,
> > >
> > > considering the Bylaws art. VI, section 3 (d) that reads:
> > >
> > > (d) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for
> > > recognition
> > > as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition will be posted for
> > > public comment pursuant to Article III, Section 3. The Board may create
> > > new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its own motion,
> > > if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of the
> > > Corporation.
> > >
> > > I move that the GA will express its support for the immediate
> > > acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency by the Board in
> > > accordance with its Bylaws.
> > >
> > > I move that this support will take the form of a GA Resolution
> > > recommending that the Board will  place either the creation of such an IC
> > > or the "approval in principle" on its Agenda for a decision in Stockholm.
> > >
> > > Respectfully 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-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

- --
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 #438
************************