Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #487
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Saturday, May 26 2001            Volume 01 : Number 487

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

Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 18:51:38 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-roots] response to Crispin Internet-draft

Milton and all,

  I agree for the most part your nicely worded analysis of Crispin's
draft (It that is what you want to call it? )

  I found his draft mostly a vain attempt at attacking what already
exists
and is now growing at a rather rapid pace of late.  It appears that he
is using the IETF for his own purposes to demonize Competitive/Inclusive
Root structures and Registries that fall outside of ICANN's direct
control or influence.  I suggest that anyone reading Crispins draft
will likely see the obvious straw man tendencies in it without too
much trouble as well.  So obvious as to be almost blatant in
the intent.  That seems to be contrary to the high standards of
the IETF, and therefore lends much credence that has been
circulated in the past few years as to the IAB's and IETF
objectivity.  I hope that this can be corrected in the near
term so that the IETF will not continue to be viewed
in this light...

Milton Mueller wrote:

> Analysis of the Crispin Internet-draft.
>
> The draft is based on two assumptions, both easily questioned.
>
> One: "I implicitly postulate that multiple roots exist
> and are in heavy use and that the Internet Corporation
> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has somehow
> approved of them."
>
> That assumption is self-contradictory. If ICANN
> has "approved" of multiple roots, why would it not
> coordinate the contents of its root zone file with
> them? What would "approval" consist of, if not some
> kind of coordination or avoidance of duplication?
>
> Two: he assumes that multiple roots would not converge
> on a coordinated zone file. In other words, his very
> definition of a "multiple root regime" assumes that
> registries, Internet service providers, and consumers
> will heedlessly create and buy conflicting names in a
> fragmented name space.
>
> That assumption is inconsistent with what we
> know about the the economics of standards competition,
> and for the most part is contradicted by the current
> behavior of alternate root operators.
>
> Once these two assumptions are made, multiple roots
> are equated with a *completely uncoordinated* root
> zone file. Crispin uses most of the draft telling us
> how horrible name collisions and uncoordinated zone
> files are. But as far as I know, no person advocates
> name collisions (except perhaps the Board members who
> selected .BIZ, but that's another story).
>
> In short, the whole draft is an enthusiastic whacking
> of a straw man.
>
> But the most fundamental problem with this draft is
> that, like RFC 2826, it diverts our attention from the
> real policy issues we face.
>
> The issue we face is not: are alternate roots "good"
> or "harmful"?
>
> Alternate roots do in fact exist. No one can prevent
> them from existing, because te selection of a root
> server to point to is a voluntary act by ISPs and
> end-user client software.
>
> So in reality, the question we need to answer is:
> if alternate roots do exist, how should ICANN relate to them?
>
> If ICANN "endorses" other roots, then it would of
> course coordinate its TLD selections with them, and
> there would be fewer if any name collisions.
>
> If ICANN doesn't "endorse" other roots, then.....then
> what? Should it adopt TLDs that conflict with ones
> publicly in use by alternate root servers? If, like
> Crispin, one purports to be an enemy of fragmentation
> and name collisions, the answer should be NO. The
> other alternative is to ignore other roots and pretend
> they don't exist. That may be easy to do if they are
> small and helpless, but what if they get big? At some
> point, one has to consider coordination.
>
> Or is Crispin saying is that he wants ICANN, or
> someone, to make it illegal to run an alternate root?
> This would involve regulating the configuration of
> every computer connected to the Internet, and defining
> what technology and service provider everyone had to
> use. It would be like a law dictating that everyone
> had to use the same computer operating system to
> avoid "instability." To me, that cure sounds worse
> than the disease. But at this stage we need to
> concentrate on identifying facts and defining options,
> not on making normative judgments.
>
> What to do about multiple roots is an important,
> serious question. Crispin's draft is too focused on demonizing alternative roots to contribute any
> substantive answers.
>
> It is an excellent example of how the DNSO should
> NOT approach the multiple roots issue.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" 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

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

Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 17:15:52 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] BUILDING A PLATFORM FOR DESTRUCTION

As part the RIR package found at
http://www.icann.org/stockholm/emerging-rir-topic.htm

Does anyone else read (b) as a set up to disqualify RIRs who would do
business with an ISP that would do business with the now existing .BIZ.
How does one "avoid global address space fragmentation"?  So far ICANN
BoD seems to think it is OK to assign a new gTLD which duplicates one
that already exists, so they either have to get rid of one or make sure
the ISPs do not do business with one and they can only directly do this
through the RIRs.

Now, if I read Milton Mueller's most recent post correctly.

" Alternate roots do in fact exist. No one can prevent
them from existing, because te selection of a root
server to point to is a voluntary act by ISPs and
end-user client software. "

So my conclusion is that the only way for ICANN to move ahead in the
.biz manner they have chosen is to develop an agreement that restricts
the aforsaid voluntary act by the ISPs.

(9) Regional IP Address Registries

              The initial signatories to this MOU shall include ICANN
and the Signing RIRs who have signed below. ICANN will
              develop requirements and policies for the approval of
additional RIRs. This MOU assumes that these
              requirements will include at least:

                   (a) That the proposed RIR has demonstrated the broad
support of the Internet service providers
                   (ISPs) in its proposed region of coverage.

                   (b) That the region of coverage meets the scale to be
defined by ICANN considering the need to
                   avoid global address space fragmentation.

Then again I may be paranoid and wrong ;>}
Hum I just wonder if Verisign would benefit from such restrictions also.

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: Fri, 25 May 2001 20:07:49 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-roots] BUILDING A PLATFORM FOR DESTRUCTION

Eric and all assembly members,

  Excellent evaluation and read here Eric.  To the extent you provided
for here, I am in complete agreement with you conclusion.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> As part the RIR package found at
> http://www.icann.org/stockholm/emerging-rir-topic.htm
>
> Does anyone else read (b) as a set up to disqualify RIRs who would do
> business with an ISP that would do business with the now existing .BIZ.
> How does one "avoid global address space fragmentation"?  So far ICANN
> BoD seems to think it is OK to assign a new gTLD which duplicates one
> that already exists, so they either have to get rid of one or make sure
> the ISPs do not do business with one and they can only directly do this
> through the RIRs.
>
> Now, if I read Milton Mueller's most recent post correctly.
>
> " Alternate roots do in fact exist. No one can prevent
> them from existing, because te selection of a root
> server to point to is a voluntary act by ISPs and
> end-user client software. "
>
> So my conclusion is that the only way for ICANN to move ahead in the
> .biz manner they have chosen is to develop an agreement that restricts
> the aforsaid voluntary act by the ISPs.
>
> (9) Regional IP Address Registries
>
>               The initial signatories to this MOU shall include ICANN
> and the Signing RIRs who have signed below. ICANN will
>               develop requirements and policies for the approval of
> additional RIRs. This MOU assumes that these
>               requirements will include at least:
>
>                    (a) That the proposed RIR has demonstrated the broad
> support of the Internet service providers
>                    (ISPs) in its proposed region of coverage.
>
>                    (b) That the region of coverage meets the scale to be
> defined by ICANN considering the need to
>                    avoid global address space fragmentation.
>
> Then again I may be paranoid and wrong ;>}
> Hum I just wonder if Verisign would benefit from such restrictions also.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" 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

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

Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 20:21:36 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-roots] Briefing Paper

Danny and all,

  This looks pretty good with respect to concerns with potential
collisions
within a specific Name Space(s).  However there are some other
relevant and related issues dealing with Registrar violations and stated
violations with respect to pre-registration of Domain Names
in .BIZ and .INFO, with additional concerns of registrars under
an contractual agreement with ICANN and approved by the DOC,
such as register.com, bulkregister.com, Tocows.com, ect in
improperly transferring registrant Domain names such as E.Com
to another registrant improperly.

babybows.com wrote:

> Not having noticed anyone else yet responding to the Names Council request
> for a "Briefing Paper", I have myself prepared such a paper which may be
> read at the following URL:  http://www.babybows.com/briefing.htm
>
> I would appreciate it if the experts in this group can point me to any
> errors before the document is formally submitted.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger
> GA Chair
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" 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

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

Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 22:29:50 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] finally we have a direct connection

There is a direct link between the control against the real dotBIZ the
attempted manipulation of ccTLDs and our rights as dotcommoners. Look
here real close ladies and gents when I speak of dotcommoners I do not
speak of my whitebread so. cal. kids, I speak of shoe shine boys (20s
supporting families in So.E. Asia) I speak of soon to be AFNIC supported
hawkers in the SubSahara.  I speak of my 80 and 90 plus parents. (yea
even I was born and adopted). Goodness I speak of doctors who saved my
son's life and children who need help in the Sudan.

Call me noise! I am sick of the reference to noise!  This is The DNSO
and it is the GA.  You smarter than thou folks just jump back or get
slammed. Brett and Froomkin you insult us when you refer to our noise!
Can't you just for one second back up us ignoramants?  I know most of us
are stupid and ignorant of this ether world but come on, who do you
represent if we were gone?  We write our mother and we await word from
our college students away from home and you bad ass intellectuals mess
with our lives and make us worry about collisions.
There are thousand and thousands of small businesses throughout the worl
that feed their families based on ecommerce and you guys bounce around
armagedon like it was part of your business.

Joanna's hard work on the "privacy for me campaign" has met with not
real support. And we worry some more.  Mr. Morfin seemed to care but was
hammered.  Mr Williams had some Ideas and was exciled. Corliss lied
about his intentions and is glorified.  I sure hope that the silent
majority soon speaks up.

dotBIZ has us worried sick.  The APNIC contract is cause for insecurity
and I do not addrees the others.

Damnit you people don't you realize that the people making this work
could not bare to see the reality of your decision makers' facade.  If
ISPs told their clients just how bad it was they would all go back to
printed media.

I am declaring a call to harms.  After the NetSol debacle let them
worry.

Sincerely,

maybe nelodramatic but you tecnointellectuals better start loving the
users!!!

- --
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: Sat, 26 May 2001 03:56:35 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] finally we have a direct connection

ERic and all,

  I have enforced my privacy rights vigorously on more than one occasion.
When and if I feel the need to do so again, I shall.  I suggest that others
do so as well.  I am a well known advocate of personal privacy, for many
obvious reasons.  I shall continue to be so.

  It is fairly obvious that Joanna's position is broadly excepted in the
EU, and among a growing number of US citizens in various venues,
not just Whois data, BTW.  The medical industry is also facing this
issue as well...

Eric Deicer wrote:

> There is a direct link between the control against the real dotBIZ the
> attempted manipulation of ccTLDs and our rights as dotcommoners. Look
> here real close ladies and gents when I speak of dotcommoners I do not
> speak of my whitebread so. cal. kids, I speak of shoe shine boys (20s
> supporting families in So.E. Asia) I speak of soon to be AFNIC supported
> hawkers in the SubSahara.  I speak of my 80 and 90 plus parents. (yea
> even I was born and adopted). Goodness I speak of doctors who saved my
> son's life and children who need help in the Sudan.
>
> Call me noise! I am sick of the reference to noise!  This is The DNSO
> and it is the GA.  You smarter than thou folks just jump back or get
> slammed. Brett and Froomkin you insult us when you refer to our noise!
> Can't you just for one second back up us ignoramants?  I know most of us
> are stupid and ignorant of this ether world but come on, who do you
> represent if we were gone?  We write our mother and we await word from
> our college students away from home and you bad ass intellectuals mess
> with our lives and make us worry about collisions.
> There are thousand and thousands of small businesses throughout the worl
> that feed their families based on ecommerce and you guys bounce around
> armagedon like it was part of your business.
>
> Joanna's hard work on the "privacy for me campaign" has met with not
> real support. And we worry some more.  Mr. Morfin seemed to care but was
> hammered.  Mr Williams had some Ideas and was exciled. Corliss lied
> about his intentions and is glorified.  I sure hope that the silent
> majority soon speaks up.
>
> dotBIZ has us worried sick.  The APNIC contract is cause for insecurity
> and I do not addrees the others.
>
> Damnit you people don't you realize that the people making this work
> could not bare to see the reality of your decision makers' facade.  If
> ISPs told their clients just how bad it was they would all go back to
> printed media.
>
> I am declaring a call to harms.  After the NetSol debacle let them
> worry.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> maybe nelodramatic but you tecnointellectuals better start loving the
> users!!!
>
> --
> 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

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

Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 03:59:08 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-roots] Briefing Paper

Chris and all,

 You make some good points here Chris that bare consideration IMHO.
(More detailed response comments below NameCritics)

NameCritic wrote:

> Ok, you are all used to some strange ideas presented by me so this should
> not be a shocker. Just a thought for others to maybe build an idea out of.

  Well a strange idea is better than no idea at all!  >;)  So, keep them
coming...

>
>
> When the government builds a highway they secure the right of way from land
> owners to do so. The land owner is paid and there are rules to decide how
> that figure is arrived at.

  Yes, but sometimes the gov just declares the Right of Eminent domain,
no
pun intended...  >;)   This seems to be the prevailing attitude the
ICANN
BoD has decidedly taken.

>
>
> Is there a possible model here for something ICANN could do when creating a
> new gTLD that is the same as an existing one in another root to secure the
> right of way per say?

  Possibly.  However it would be much better and more reasonable to
recognize that other Root structures or competitive Registries outside
of ICANN's control, exist.  If First come first serve had been
honored as it has been in the Internet industry, in this area, there
would
have not been the potential problem of potential colliders.  It was
obvious
from the ICANN meeting in MDR that the Board know other Registries
and root structures existed and were growing, all be it at that time a
slow
growth.  Yet decidedly selected two gTLD's that were identical to
tow others that were already in operation, .BIZ and .INFO.

  The ICANN BoD's decision in MDR in selecting .BIZ and .INFO,
and Vint Cerf in particular recognizing specifically that .WEB had a
history of registrations already, seems to show fairly clearly that
they consider other registries or root structures illegitimate to their
seemingly predetermined desired direction for the Legacy Root
structure.  Hence, I can only reasonable conclude the either the
ICANN BoD changes it's policy direction, or the DNS will
be fragmented at their insistence...

> Some compensation to the tld owner for not allowing
> the colliders to exist but giving ICANN the authority to select tlds they
> deem viable?

  This can be handled programmatically now through various means
which have been discussed in fairly great detail.  For instance,
SROOTS/BINDPlus, and Multi-Root for instance...

>
>
> Don't go off on me here. I believe that the roots should be all inclusive
> still, however there could be alternatives that are being overlooked and
> this may lead to one of them. To just introduce the new tlds with NO
> consideration to previous tld operators seems the wrong approach, and it
> doesn't seem they are going to recognize the need to include other roots at
> this time, why not a compromise where say Leah receives a set amount plus
> royalties for ICANN obtaining the right of way.

  I doubt that the ICANN BoD is either in a position to pay tribute
or would/should be willing to do so.  However recognizing that a
technical solution is already available, would be a reasonable method
of accomplishing this goal.

>
>
> IMHO the $50,000 ICANN charged for the application fee is a reasonable
> amount for the right of way plus the operator of the new tld paying a
> royalty per domain name filed.
>
> Now if that means tlds that have been in operation for a certain amount of
> time or grandfathering in ones that exist to date for this compromise I'll
> leave to you techies to work on.

  Already been done.  But the ICANN BoD is not excepting unless
the IETF sanctions these potential solutions (See methods in my above
comments).

>
>
> But keep in mind if you shoot for the whole ball of wax you aren't likely to
> get it and if ICANN refuses to do anything at all about this then it will
> cause them problems. A compromise has the chance of being implemented.

  Yes there are some, if not several possibilities, but the ICANN BoD
has thus far refused to give them consideration.

>
>
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 5:04 PM
> Subject: [ga-roots] Briefing Paper
>
> > Not having noticed anyone else yet responding to the Names Council request
> > for a "Briefing Paper", I have myself prepared such a paper which may be
> > read at the following URL:  http://www.babybows.com/briefing.htm
> >
> > I would appreciate it if the experts in this group can point me to any
> > errors before the document is formally submitted.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Danny Younger
> > GA Chair
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-roots" 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-roots" 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

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

Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 05:45:17 -0400
From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Second request for comments on the GA agenda

Although an invitation was formally extended to the Names Council to join
the GA in dialogue, allowing each NC Interim Committee Chair ample
opportunity to discuss the Terms-of-Reference that their respective
committees have decided upon, and providing each with an opportunity to
outline to the GA the degree to which we will be invited to participate in
committee efforts, this invitation has been graciously declined by the NC
Chair.

I have responded to Philip Sheppard, advising him that I will convey the
sentiments of the GA to the NC, and that I will address the NC with regard
to the GA's work-item agenda.

As many have previously criticized both the Chair and the Co-Chair of this
Assembly for purportedly having an agenda, I am asking our membership to put
forward their views so that the Chair may report such views to the NC.  I
look forward to your comments.

- --
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: Sat, 26 May 2001 05:36:11 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Second request for comments on the GA agenda

Danny and all assembly members,

  Danny, I counted some 21 different offers for agenda items in the
Archives.  Have you reviewed them possibly?  I also sent two
potential agenda items directly to you as well....

Danny Younger wrote:

> Although an invitation was formally extended to the Names Council to join
> the GA in dialogue, allowing each NC Interim Committee Chair ample
> opportunity to discuss the Terms-of-Reference that their respective
> committees have decided upon, and providing each with an opportunity to
> outline to the GA the degree to which we will be invited to participate in
> committee efforts, this invitation has been graciously declined by the NC
> Chair.
>
> I have responded to Philip Sheppard, advising him that I will convey the
> sentiments of the GA to the NC, and that I will address the NC with regard
> to the GA's work-item agenda.
>
> As many have previously criticized both the Chair and the Co-Chair of this
> Assembly for purportedly having an agenda, I am asking our membership to put
> forward their views so that the Chair may report such views to the NC.  I
> look forward to your comments.
>
> --
> 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

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

Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 12:27:35 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC Meeting in Stockholm, 2 June, update on webcast.

This is an updated agenda for the NC in Stockholm.
ICANN will be webcasting the DNSO General Assembly and Names Council 
Meetings (2 June), service provided by Berkman Center, see information
inside.
The title of item 3 has been modified.

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

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010602.NCstockholm-agenda.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

      DNSO Names Council Meeting in Stockholm on 2 June 2001 - agenda

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

22 May 2001.

This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the DNSO
Names Council http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010220.NCprocedures-v2.0.html
adopted on 26th February 2001.

Date, time, phones and webcast

  1. The DNSO Names Council meeting in Stockholm will be held on 2nd June
     2001, 14:00 - 17:00, [@ Room K2] .

     (5:00 LA, 8:00 New York, 14:00 Paris, 21:00 Japan/Korea, 22:00 Melbourne)
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     Local time between April and end October, SUMMER in the NORTH hemisphere
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         12:00
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     California, USA                            UTC-8+1DST   5:00
     Missouri, USA                              UTC-6+1DST   7:00
     Monterrey, Mexico                          UTC-6+1DST   7:00 since 6 May
     Panama, Panama                             UTC-5+0DST   7:00
     Washington DC, USA                   (EST) UTC-5+1DST   8:00
     St.Thomas, Virgin Islands                  UTC-4+0DST   8:00
     Santiago, Chile                            UTC-4+0DST   8:00 since 11 Mar
     Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST   9:00
     London, United Kingdom                     UTC+0+1DST  13:00
     Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+1DST  14:00
     Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+1DST  14:00
     Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+1DST  14:00
     Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+1DST  14:00
     Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST  21:00
     Tokyo, Japan                               UTC+9+0DST  21:00
     Melbourne, Australia                      UTC+10+0DST  22:00 since 25 Mar
     Auckland, New Zealand                     UTC+12+0DST  24:00
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     The DST ends/starts on last Sunday of October (with some exceptions)
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

     Please visit http://www.icann.org/stockholm/ for details about 
     all ICANN meetings (schedule, agendas, meeting rooms, hotels, visas, etc).

 2. The NC will be webcast by Berkman Center, thanks to Ben Edelman 
    [email-masked] 

    Access will be via http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/ 
    as usual. You will find on Berkman site all information about 
    technical requirements. 

    In summary a 28.8 Kbps connection is required for access to live 
    and archived streaming media feeds (56K or faster preferred). 
    The necessary software is the RealPlayer version 5.0 or later 
    (version G2 or later preferred) or the Microsoft Windows Media 
    Player (version 6.4 or later). 

Agenda and related documents

Philip Sheppard will be chairing the NC meeting.

  1. Update on Business Plan

        o UDRP - Caroline Chicoine (10 mins)
        o WhoIs - Paul Kane (10 mins)
        o Internationalised names (10 mins)
        o Review (20 mins)
        o TLDs - Review of decision to postpone new NC interim committee
          until the first new TLD members of the NC is appointed - Philip
          Sheppard (10 mins)

  2. Presentation by GA chair of GA work agenda Danny Younger (15 mins)

  3. Report of the committee on multiple DNS roots and names - Grant Forsyth
     (15 mins)

     Documents:
        o http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010507.NCalternateroots-GF.html

  4. New gTLDs implementation ?

        o Presentation by dot biz (10 mins) + (15 mins questions)
        o Presentation by dot info (10 mins) + (15 mins questions)

  5. Dot org - process to change Registry - Paul Kane (15 min)

  6. Multi-lingual outreach - ICANN Secretariat update (10 mins)

  7. DNSO Secretariat and sponsorship update - Erica Roberts/Roger Cochetti
     (15 mins)

  8. Any other business

Next NC teleconference will be held on 29 June 2001, at 15:00 Central
European Time (Paris time), see dates for the NC meetings in 2001 in:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-calendar.html

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

                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

- --
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: Sat, 26 May 2001 06:24:32 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Second request for comments on the GA agenda

Danny and all assembly members,

  Understood.  However the DNSO secretariat has already sent out the
announcement of what the DNSO agenda is.  See:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010602.NCstockholm-agenda.html
Hence my question to you and the assembly members.  It seems
that you are a bit tardy in making this second request....

  From what I discovered from the archives, only one of the items
that I suggested/requested made it to the agenda items list (Whois).
I also noticed that NONE of the other items that I gleaned from the
archives were added to the DNSO Agenda for Stolkholm.  That
should make for allot of excitement in Stolkholm I would imagine...

  However if the Agenda is available for modification, can you let us know,
and will the DNSO secretariat please send to the list an appropriate
posting to that effect?

  Thank you for you interest and consideration in advance.  >;)

Danny Younger wrote:

> Thank you Jeff,
>
> While I am aware of the agenda items cited in the archives, I am also aware
> that many that subscribe to our list do not actively participate on the
> list, hence another call for final contributions on this topic before
> Stockholm.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 8:36 AM
> To: Danny Younger
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Second request for comments on the GA agenda
>
> Danny and all assembly members,
>
>   Danny, I counted some 21 different offers for agenda items in the
> Archives.  Have you reviewed them possibly?  I also sent two
> potential agenda items directly to you as well....
>
> Danny Younger wrote:
>
> > Although an invitation was formally extended to the Names Council to join
> > the GA in dialogue, allowing each NC Interim Committee Chair ample
> > opportunity to discuss the Terms-of-Reference that their respective
> > committees have decided upon, and providing each with an opportunity to
> > outline to the GA the degree to which we will be invited to participate in
> > committee efforts, this invitation has been graciously declined by the NC
> > Chair.
> >
> > I have responded to Philip Sheppard, advising him that I will convey the
> > sentiments of the GA to the NC, and that I will address the NC with regard
> > to the GA's work-item agenda.
> >
> > As many have previously criticized both the Chair and the Co-Chair of this
> > Assembly for purportedly having an agenda, I am asking our membership to
> put
> > forward their views so that the Chair may report such views to the NC.  I
> > look forward to your comments.
> >
> > --
> > 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

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

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

Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 07:49:02 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: GA agenda??

Danny,

Danny Younger wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> The timeslot was scheduled by the NC Chair.  As Chair of the NC, he has the
> right to set up his own timetable for the NC meeting.  I am making a
> presentation at this meeting by request of the NC Chair.  You may certainly
> ask the NC to set aside time for public comments in their session, although
> historically they have made no such provisions.  In our own session there
> will be ample time to make our collective views known.

  Very well.  However it has been made very apparent to me that making
views known is often not enough.  We need resolutions to be generated
out of those sessions and approved by the DNSO GA list for participants
that may not attend in Stolkholm via GA member vote.  These resolutions
should than be sent to the NC and the ICANN BoD as the consensus
of the DSNO GA participants and thereby implemented as ICANN
policy.  I have serious doubts that this will or can occur, however.
As such the DNSO GA is without any real power within the DNSO
or even the larger ICANN itself.  The same can be said for the
still nonexistent @large.

  Given these facts, Danny, it seems fairly obvious to me and from
our members other inquiries, the stakeholders, participating or
not, to directly indicate and reflect that the ICANN BoD along
with the DNSO NC has not met it's basic mandate or is in
compliance with it's contracts with DOC (White Paper and MoU).
Given this to be the true situation, any policies currently assumed
by the ICANN BoD are in abeyance with their contractual
obligations and are therefore null and void until such time
the ICANN BoD and the NC become in compliance with their
contractual requirements.

  I hope that now I have made myself perfectly clear to you
regarding the agenda considerations and how they are increasingly
being viewed, as has been plainly evident for some time now,
with the vast majority of stakeholders regardless or their level
of participation, as that participation has been blocked, or otherwise
not made available to them.  This would of course include the
DNSO GA through it's questionable practices on the DNSO GA
ML and the administration there of...

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 9:57 AM
> To: Danny Younger
> Subject: GA agenda??
>
> Danny,
>
>  From http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010602.NCstockholm-agenda.html
> Item 2 is as follows:
> 2.Presentation by GA chair of GA work agenda Danny Younger (15 mins)
> I don't see this a very reasonable amount of time for the GA's agenda,
> and
> I also don't see that only the Chair's opinion is adequate to make this
> presentation based upon the discourse on the various DNSO GA
> Mailing lists of late...
>
> --
> 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

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 #487
************************