Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #501
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, May 30 2001           Volume 01 : Number 501

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

Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 00:03:46 +0800
From: Brian Appleby <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Catch-22 or Chicken and Egg

Dear all,

This is a great example as to why the sub-lists cauase more harm than good.

As a member of the WG-Review I sympathized with the good intentions to have 
GA-controlled lists for our own use.  As we have seen from Erica's recent 
posting on the NC meeting, the NC in fact thinks they own the whole gosh 
darn GA and can jerk us around like (insert own analogy here).

There are no reasons to believe that the original intentions were not good 
so let us assume so.  And let us also assume that the administration of the 
lists was also done with good intentions as well.  But if we are to have 
true dialogue with one another, we need to talk to one another and by being 
forced to jump around from list-to-list this won't happen and is utterly 
confusing and divisive.   Set up a good thread system to keep the topics 
clear and organized.

BTW I would like to promote a suggestion that we all subscribe to the 
GA-full list so that we can tap the most inclusive source of information 
from our fellow GA members.  Plus give the NC the reason they seem to need 
to keep the list open.  If you get double messages or what not, read the 
mails off of the archives and then go to you own mail system to 
respond.  Clean and neat that way.

OK, I might even remain quiet for the rest of the evening.

Cheers,
Brian

At 10:43 PM 5/29/01 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>Hi Danny
>
>You wrote:
>
> > Those of you interested in pursuing such issues are invited to take up
> > this discussion on the ga-rules list.
>
>There's a bit of a Catch-22 here, Danny.  You post your message to the GA
>list because you want everyone to read it.  Those who respond will naturally
>reply in the same manner thus forcing the thread to continue on the GA list.
>
>Perhaps the ONLY way to get people to post to GA-RULES is for people to post
>to GA-RULES.  Otherwise it's a Chicken and Egg situation.
>
>I have reposted you email to the GA-RULES list.
>
>Best regards
>Alternate Chair
>
>
>
>--
>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: Tue, 29 May 2001 16:33:23 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Observations...

Danny,

You wrote:

>
>As I review the names of those who actually voted on the GA ballot 
>questions
>http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b05fullrecord.html , I note that perhaps
>only 18 out of the 91 voters had posted any comments to the GA list in the
>last month.  Frankly, most of the voters are unknown to me.   Simply put, a
>full 80% of those voting do not actively participate on our GA list.  You
>may want to think about why this happens to be the case, and forward some
>suggestions as to how we may make improvements.

It is a fact of life that participation via a vote is higher than 
participation via a debate. Think about political elections: (almost)every 
citizen votes, but a small percentage participates in public debates. In 
fact, you don't even know (generally) how people vote for their political 
leadership or for a proposition (in countries that have voting systems for 
propositions).

Incidentally, this is even more true when participation in a debate that 
people may suppose to be civilized may expose the person that expresses a 
point of view to libel and slander.

>
>I was also quite dismayed to note that many our members who posted in the
>last month did not choose to vote:
><snip>..., Gaetano, ...<snip>.
>
>You may also want to think about why regular contributors have decided not
>to participate in a vote.

I have firm data about myself ;>), and can make hypothesis for the others.
In my case, I have abundantly made clear my POV on the matter of Individual 
Constituencies: what we need to do is to create a wider support (I wrote 
about involving other organizations/bodies in the project, for instance), 
and to draft a *new* proposal.
The simple motion declaring a matter of principle, without effort to broaden 
the support beyond the few members of the GA, without concrete proposal, is 
useless, if not counterproductive, providing further demonstration that we 
are unable to go beyond the very limited border we have been imposing on 
ourselves. Hence, my refusal to participate in this exercise in futility 
(please note: "refusal to participate", not "abstention" - I am *very much* 
in favour of an Individual Constituency, but this is not the way that will 
bring neither progress in the issue, nor progress for the GA).
Incidentally, is there anybody that *really* thinks that something will be 
achieved by this motion? Moreover, is there anybody that, if he/she were in 
the ICANN BoD, would say: "Gee, this is really strong support to IC, a new 
fact that we have to consider for implementing a new constituency!"?

Second motion, the funding.
I belong to the small minority who thinks that any proposal on financial 
matters should be accompanied by a business case, i.e. that whenever a party 
is asking for money it should explain why. Moreover, whenever disboursement 
of money is proposed for third parties, these third parties should at least 
be informed, if not asked for agreement. We ask money for the other 
Supporting Organizations without even knowing if they agree to receive this 
money. Because people may well disagree, and prefer to be financially 
independent, which will keep their political independence.
Again, is there anybody that expects the Board to say "Gee, you are right, 
tell us how much and we write a check!"?

Anyway, the new game in town is to vote motions, not to get work done. Fine. 
But don't expect breathtaking results.
Now, this is the reason for myself. Some other people may feel the same way, 
but some may have other reasons, as simple as being away from the mail 
during the week, having read the ballot and set aside for later, but 
forgotten, or any other reason.

>
>You may wish to also note that over 70% of the members on our voting
>registry decided not to vote.  Perhaps we need to look at this "registry"
>list, and ask ourselves if we need a mechanism to keep it "current".

Please, don't!
The only reason for deleting somebody from the list is rejection of the 
e-mail with the ballot (and even in that case I would involve the watchdog 
committee).
Also, please explain me what harm does to the GA to have subscribers to the 
voting registry that do not participate in some voting, and what will be the 
advantage of having a smaller voting registry (I assume that the sending of 
the ballot is an automated procedure, and that DNSO Secretariat is *not* on 
a dial-up connection to the PSTN).

>
>If we are going to transform this Assembly into a body that is reasonably
>functional and representative, we may need to re-think our approach.

Good.

How about to foster a proposal for Individual Constituencies that tries to 
involve new individuals outside the GA world, possibly contacting 
organizations that already have individual membership to explore possible 
collaboration (but we need a programme, a strategy, ...).
Do some outreach, for instance (how about talking to the former wg-e, and to 
resume from there? If the IC could bring new people into the process, the 
picture could change dramatically).
In Europe the success of the AtLarge was largely (sorry for the pun) 
determined by the press, mainly in Germany. Are we sure that the press could 
not be involved again for a campaign in favour of the rights of the 
individuals in the Domain Name system?
Just ideas.

For the financials, how about to prepare a budget for the GA? How much is 
needed? For what? How can we canvas? We may discover that the support from 
ICANN and/or the DNSO/NC is not needed, we may achieve financial 
independence (hint: we must discuss issues that have chances to be relevant, 
not the over-repeated supposed censorship).
Example: somebody had the grat idea before Marina del Rey to include 
commercial in the webcast of the GA. It will work, but only if the GA will 
debate matters that are likely to gather people to their screens, and 
connect.

>  I am
>open to further suggestions, observations, and comments on how we can work
>to improve our Assembly.

Not easy.
I tried during my term, but with little success.
I really hope you can achieve better results.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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

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

Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 16:52:24 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Credibility.

Joop,

>At 22:30 28/05/01 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
>>Well that would certainly keep the numbers down since no newbie
>>would know who to ask for endorsement.
>
>Short term, probably yes. However, once the GA gains corresponding
>respectability, people who really want to have their opinions heard here
>will find  ways to get their endorsements soon enough.
>
>Mind you, the number of active posters now is already very low to start
>with.... (30 against 300?)
>
>In practice, this method of making GA "speakers" representative of at least
>5 other members would be extremely easy to achieve with a web based Booth.
>
>If anyone would support such a method of creating positive "posting rights"
>, I am ready to explore this option further on GA-int or GA-icann.
>We are all groping in the dark with this new medium of inter-communication.
>Let's experiment with what works and what doesn't.
>
>Does the GA have anything to lose?

Yes. Participation.

If you think that participation is low, wait until you put further barreers.
Incidentally, may the same 5 people endorse multiple members?
If yes, six people can get together, and have each five of them endorse the 
sixth.
If not, you need to check that there are not multiple endorsements, and this 
will cost more than to manage additional mailing lists, to speak about a 
known issue.
Also, if a member-endorser unsubscibes, does the member-endorsed fail to 
meet the requirement? Who checks (and I don't mean who does the physical 
check, it can be automated in a DB, but who "guarantees" that there are no 
irregularities)?. I can see the watchdog list with tons of messages and 
cases to be checked: already ga-abuse is almost paralized because it has 
more traffic than ga-full, you can imagine what can happen :<(

So, may I reverse the question:
Does the GA have anything to gain?

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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

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

Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 13:35:32 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA-sys outreach to GA members

As you may know, with respect to WHOIS, the ga-sys list has been relatively
active, but so far focused mainly on EU and US Privacy issues. If the
internet community, through DNSO is to give policy advice to anybody on the
issue of privacy, steps should be taken to obtain a proper overview, for
each to know the current situation surrounding *all* countries, independent
of any "experts" within GA ranks, who may or may not be advocating partisan
views in a "last man standing in their country" type of scenario.

In order to provide meaningful input, it is necessary to be more inclusive
worldwide in terms of numbers participating. To that end, I suggest the GA
as a whole could engage in an outreach policy of collating externally
produced data that laready exists, posting URLs to the DNSO public archive.

We should be referring regularly not only to national government on-line
archives, but also to report recommendations made by local, reputable,
community organizations and industry leaders - a simple, if fairly
time-consuming research task, which I am suggesting is vital to these lists
while GA members grow to more substantial numbers.

There is no shortage of data available on-line through the search engines,
but at 5 posts a day, this would take one person approximately 10 days just
to file one report per country on one topic (assuming no personal comments
or updates from the poster at all), and therefore, it's not really a
practical exercise for one person to undertake unpaid and advocate personal
positions at the same time. This should be a community effort, for those who
do not have positions to advocate, or are willing to set those aside for a
short period of time, hence I post this to the GA main list as the most
viable window of opportunity.

Regarding Privacy and WHOIS, if members of the GA would please advise
positions with respect to their own territories, and to post relevant URLs
to the ga-sys list, any documents that may arrive in foreign language could
be translated if the situation presents itself, or summarized by the member
in English alongside the original, but the sooner we receive a few foreign
language documents, the sooner ICANN will be forced to translate them.

The example I cite below, SOUTH AFRICA, is a country without legislation on
key issues apparently, a fact that I did not know until I looked it up, and
important to know when balancing the requirement for industry
self-regulation vs. government legislation in a Worldwide situation.

In deference to the Alt Chair's request to keep topics on specific lists, I
respectfully request that general replies about GA outreach in general be
addressed to the GA-list and that Privacy/ WHOIS specific replies be
addressed to the ga-sys list.

Regards,
Joanna

http://196.30.226.221/office/kpmg/0103261206.htm

KPMG, ECASA release E-Commerce Green Paper response

[Johannesburg, 26 March 2001] - KPMG and the E-Commerce Association of South
Africa (ECASA) have released the joint industry comment on the E-Commerce
Green Paper  the result of a number of workshops and information sessions
run in collaboration since the Green Paper's release in November last year.

The document discusses several issues that are key to the e-commerce
legislation, not the least of which is the view that unless e-commerce
legislation is addressed urgently, e-commerce in SA will be inhibited and
the lack of legal certainty will act as deterrent to trade with and
investment in the country.

This is the view of South African business representatives who participated
in the KPMG and the ECASA E-Commerce Green Paper workshops.

"It is clear that SA needs e-commerce legislation desperately. However,
until such time, business will need to take a self-regulatory approach and
manage the legal risk which is a result of the uncertainty in our existing
law," says Mark Heyink, head of KPMG e-business legal risk management.

"It is not unsurprising that the golden thread throughout the discussions is
the need to ensure that South African law is in line with international
developments. The urgent need for privacy legislation is an example of where
it is imperative that international privacy principles and in particular,
the European Union's directive on privacy are followed. In contrast, the law
on trademarks which has been based on international convention, is in line
with international trends," adds Heyink.

Representatives from commerce and industry, academia, government, service
providers, the legal and accounting professions, and representative industry
bodies, attended the KPMG/ECASA workshops, and examined the increased
importance of intellectual property and its role in the new economy.

______________________________________________________________________

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

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

Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 11:01:53 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Note to the ICANN Community UPDATE:

Discussion Draft: A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS

Posted: 28 May 2001
Note to the ICANN Community
UPDATE:

 http://www.icann.org/stockholm/unique-root-draft.htm

/Bruce

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

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

Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:06:07 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-FULL disfunctionment

On 2001-05-27 19:23:10 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>I would thank Elisabeth to see why the GA-FULL currently does not 
>include sub-list mails and - according to Patrick - there is no 
>way to receive filtered mails on a sub-list. And please to correct 
>this bug.

If some expectation isn't fulfilled, this doesn't necessarily mean 
that something is a bug.

By its original design, ga-full includes every posting which is sent 
to [email-masked].  Period.

The creation of additional lists for specific topics does NOT have 
to mean that messages to the specific lists should automatically go 
to ga-full.

If you want to get all the postings sent to the specific lists, 
subscribe to them.  It's easy.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.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: Tue, 29 May 2001 12:59:36 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Authority to control ISPs

(excerpt from the Lynn Paper)
"Over the past several years, some groups have established alternative
root nameservers on the public Internet that distribute different
information than the information distributed by the standard root
nameservers. These groups then seek to persuade ISPs and Internet  users
to replace the pre-stored IP addresses of the standard root nameservers
with those of their alternative servers. For a variety of reasons, these
alternative roots have not to date enjoyed a significant level of usage
on the public Internet."

In order to not upset the Ostrichs with their heads in the sand, the
following was deleted prior to the release of Mr. Lynn's paper;

"Because of the above, APNIC is hereby directed through the terms of the
contract with ICANN to cease any and all service to any ISP who does any
business with any other root. Further any and all ccTLDs who do not pay
directly to ICANN ten percent of all registration fees shall loose
service if they do not pay within 180 days. This action is being taken
to protect against space fragmentation."

Milton and Roeland, they don't need no stinking law to direct the ISPs
it is built into the contract.  What we need and fast is a law to
protect the ISPs.

Be it hereby resolved in order to maintain the integrity and proper
usage of the Internet that; There shall not be any law passed or
contract enforced which in any way infringes upon the ultimate rights of
the ISPs to direct their clients as they see fit.

Sincerely,
Eric

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

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

Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:30:55 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] what is a report....versus, what is a transcript....

On 2001-05-27 13:16:32 -0400, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

>... IF the chair, or in the future, the chair/co-chair, provide a 
>report to the NC, or anyone else, which isn't agreed to by the GA, 
>then the members can provide challenges to their report.  There 
>are several mechanisms to allow that. First, in the GA itself, 
>when Danny reviews the suggested NC report topics, people can 
>suggest additional topics.

You can easily simplify the procedure still further.

- - Publish a draft report.  Give a short, but reasonable, time frame 
   for comments.

- - Publish a final report which takes the comments collected during 
   the first comment period into account.  Ask for objections from GA 
   members to be submitted before some deadline has passed, and 
   attach these e-mails as they came in to the report when it's 
   submitted to the NC.

   Possibly add some technical requirements for objections, such as 
   "no more than 2kB of text" per submission.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.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: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:24:24 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Credibility.

On 2001-05-29 11:59:51 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:

>Yes. I have made the (bold?) suggestion in the WG that membership 
>of the GA (and especially posting rights on the list) should be 
>endorsed by a minimum of 5 other individual GA members. (number of 
>5 is of course open to debate) This would make each poster to the 
>GA list a sort of "representative" with accompanying rights and 
>obligations.

I object.

This proposal basically means that you have to know some members of 
some kind of GA mafia in order to even get a chance to get your 
voice heared.

Since (ok, in an ideal world...) the GA is supposed to be the focal 
point of domain name related informations, this basically means that 
individual newcomers wouldn't have any chance to ever join the GA - 
at least not by the merit they could gain in DNS-related 
discussions.  (It's not that bad for those who are representing 
organizations in some of the constituencies, since their fellow 
members could still help them to get on board of the GA.)

Thus, while such a scheme may indeed work for closed circles such as
the BWG (I'm told), it's certainly the wrong approach for an open
General Assembly.

If all you are looking for is noise reduction and usability, you 
should gateway the GA lists to local newsgroups, and use a good 
newsreader with scoring capabilities to follow them. (Alternatively, 
use an appropriate mail user agent.)

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.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: Tue, 29 May 2001 13:43:27 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-sys outreach to GA members

Hello Joanna,

Tuesday, May 29, 2001, 10:35:32 AM, Joanna Lane wrote:
> There is no shortage of data available on-line through the search engines,
> but at 5 posts a day, this would take one person approximately 10 days just
> to file one report per country on one topic

Or they can place these reports on a website, and post one message
linking to them.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:[email-masked]
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net

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

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

Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 13:31:54 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "Discussion Draft" on Unique Root

From:     http://www.lextext.com/icann/index.html

"Discussion Draft" on Unique Root. Contrary to the idea that policy
pronouncements are made "bottom up" from the Supporting Organizations, ICANN
Staff posted a draft paper yesterday on "A Unique, Authoritative Root." The
paper claims to be a draft statement of policy, but neither the paper itself
nor the concerns it purports to address originated with any Supporting
Organization. It was not the product of any working group or task force and
has not been adopted by the ICANN Board. Although titled a "Discussion
Draft," ICANN provided no time on the Public Forum agenda in Stockholm for
discussion of the subject and did not create a public forum for posting
comments.

More importantly, the paper interrupts a DNSO process meant to examine the
issue of alternate roots and alternative naming systems. A General Assembly
group of the DNSO is now discussing these issues, and the DNSO's Names
Council will begin a discussion on the subject with a presentation in
Stockholm (Forsyth paper/Mueller paper). The ICANN paper states what the
DNSO's conclusion should be.

This is not the kind of "bottom up" policy development that is supposed to
characterize the ICANN process. In a later added preface, ICANN President
Stuart Lynn claims the draft as his own work and writes that he felt it
necessary to publish it because he found a "lack of completeness" on the
"documentation of the policy basis for ICANN's commitment to a unique,
authoritative root." Of course the documentation was incomplete -- ICANN has
never set an official policy on these issues. The DNSO's Names Council took
the first steps in a possible policy process last month when it called for
an informational presentation in Stockholm. But the prominent display on the
ICANN web site of one draft contribution from ICANN's senior staff is
inappropriate and, even in the best light, premature.
- -- May 29, 2001 --

From:
 http://www.lextext.com/icann/index.html

/Bruce

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

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

Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 23:57:02 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-rules]  Re:  Observations

Dear Patrick,
I obliged myself to believe farther that I should we could help Danny 
correcting his attitude. Advises are now numerous and different enough to 
show they are not concerted, diagnosis is consistent enough to show where 
the problem lies. This is unheard and will probably now stay this way.

I am no more interested in that issue.

There are three internets: the e-legal with the iCANN and the Staff, the 
commercial with VeriSign and the Registrars, the real stuff with all the 
others depending on the source code and the real world. Innovation, future, 
real life are here.

I have been reluctantly trapped and we have been used into an action of a 
commercial lobby against e-legal. My priority was to keep the GA-FULL 
channel open so RSCs may talk together, Individual Users may be heard and 
innovation was not banned;

This has now been achieved or has been lost depending on who has understood 
what. We will see.

I will wait for you to follow your comment that I might be right about the 
GA-FULL having to be copied everything under GA (so I may unsubscribe the 
sub-list you gently registered for me) and avoid their cross-posting. I 
will wait for people listening to Brian's advise: unsubscribe GA and get 
GA-FULL. If I am right Karl Auerbach left this list because Roberto made GA 
the default. I also remember that he mailed him last year to come back and 
there was no problem changing this. Had I supported Roberto, and Karl been 
back, we would have no problem today.

So, I will from now on use that list for work, in the way I think is its 
best interest. I will only care about courtesy, fun and efficiency for this 
ML and the Internet Communities, not paying a any attention to any 
disruption from who ever for whatever reason, published or not published, 
sitting in a committee or in an off line lobby. And I advise each of you to 
do the same.

We wasted enough time to the advantage of an undisclosed lobby. At least 
VeriSign signs "Chuck Gomez" or "Roger Cochetti" and I may disagree with 
Vint, Alejandro, Mike, Louis, Joe, Andrew and certainly with Stuart's 
insular DNS draft but I understand their agenda and they sign by their 
name. I respect Jeff, WXW, Leah, Sotiris, Lari, Joana, Brian, Roeland (a 
lot), Dassa, Harald, gone Christopher, nice Chris Critic, Andrew McK, Bruce 
and Marilyn, Roberto and Elizabeth and Peter, Bradley, Michael, Marc, Dave 
and Kristy, Thomas, Bill and missing Jonathan, and all those I cannot name, 
including Kent, Dave and Joop, Philip, Erica and Theresa and dear Eric, and 
incredibly dedicated Patrick ... because all of them do not want to be 
anonymous, because all of them want to achieve something, because all of 
them spend a lot of time trying ... and because each of them has something 
to bring to me.

This is why I suggest we pay attention no more to these stupid 
administrative issues and organize without caring about disrespected 
bylaws, Californian oddities, personal ambitions, ... we have a mission 
ahead, we have diversified competences and real experience among us all and 
- - I feel - a certain friendship. Let not permit petty money interests of 
some commercial off line advises interfere with all of this and with us.

Please never rise again DNSO/GA, sub list, etc... organization issues with me.

Jefsey

On 18:23 29/05/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>FYI - Jefsey
>
>From: William S. Lovell <[email-masked]>
>To: Danny Younger <[email-masked]>; ga-rules <[email-masked]>;
>Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 08:59:28 -0700
>
>Danny Younger wrote:
>
> > Jeff Williams writes that as a result of "a vote on some "List Rules" that
> > was of questionable legitimacy... the active participants has dropped off
> > significantly as a result."
> >
> > I would disagree with this assessment.  In my conversations with others
>that
> > do not participate on our list, the general sentiment seems to be, "Why
> > should I expose myself to the vitriolic attacks that run rampant on the GA
> > list?"
>
>Enforcement of the rules would resolve that.  Wild attacks puts one on
>GA-FULL.
>
> > Part of the problem is that in knowing who is the author of any particular
> > message, we have those among us who revel in the prospect of attacking the
> > messenger.   Eliminating the list rules (as some would advocate), will not
> > solve this problem; neither will more rigid rules or more rigorous
> > enforcement (as those who have a predilection for such behavior will
> > continue to find ways to defeat the system).
>
>You can't defeat a system to which you have no access. The "right of free
>speech," which in any event is inapplicable here, never has included the
>requirement that anyone is obliged to read or listen, and even if it were,
>that's what GA-FULL is for.  See my post of yesterday on the issue of
>shutting down GA-FULL.
>
>The term "sub-list" needs to be eliminated; I think it was Patrick who
>recently laid out the distinction. Also, it's sometimes amazing how
>people will let a little squibble on a screen do their thinking for them:
>there's a ga with no dash and then a bunch that have ga-whatever,
>so somehow that's a main list and then sublists.  I suggest that what
>we now call ga be renamed ga-gen (i.e., "general") or some such
>thing where it will at least fall alphabetically into a pile and not stand
>out so much.
>
> > Perhaps the solution lies in stripping the message header so that author's
> > identity is not revealed.  In this manner, ideas can only be attacked on
>the
> > basis of "content" or "merit".    Of course, any author may choose to add
> > his/her name to a message posted in the body of the text.
>
>Anonymous attacks are the very worst kind, and present another real
>problem: how would you know who to kick off?
>
> > Some will argue that as we are the representatives of the Internet
> > Community, our names should be on record whenever we post a message.  If
> > this were true, then equally I would expect to know how our
>representatives
> > voted on any particular issue.   As the latter is not currently true, why
> > should the former be required?
>
>It's called "openness." Anyone not willing to stand behind a statement has
>no right to be heard.
>
> > There is a value in having a mechanism that allows for anonymous postings.
>
>Could not disagree more. Secret ballots, yes -- that's the tradition (at
>least
>here in the U.S. and lots of other places).
>
>I close with a passing thought on "openness." I don't need to remind you
>that
>the internal workings of ICANN are about as open as is my access to my
>wife's check book. The "openness" of all these lists, on the other hand,
>gives the upper ICANN hierarchy all it needs to know about what all of us
>are up to.  Ironic, eh?
>
>          Bill Lovell
>
>http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga-rules" 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, 30 May 2001 00:43:42 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Re[2]: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to respo nse to  response)

IANAG Roeland, so I miss something in your reasoning. what the US 
constitution has to do with the root?
Jefsey

On 23:10 29/05/01, Roeland Meyer said:
>A few points;
>
>Extracted from below;
>
> > > If a law was passed making alternative roots illegal (Something I'm
> > > not saying I agree with) it would be understood that current root and
> > > the contractors who are trusted with operating it, would receive
> > > exemption from antitrust and other relevant laws.
>
>See my first paragraph descibing the dilemma that ICANN/USG finds themselves
>in.
>
> > > Your statement "AND NO LAW CAN BE PASSED TO PREVENT IT" is not
> > > actually true.  There are no constitutional issues necessarily that
> > > would be prevent it.
>
>The US Constitution makes specific provisions for some activity and
>specifically prohibits others, including the catch-all;
>--
>http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html
>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
>http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html
>http://tcnbp.tripod.com/index.htm
>
>Amendment IX
>
>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
>construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
>
>Amendment X
>
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
>prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
>to the people.
>--
>
>Also, considering that a root zone server is simply a publishing mechanism,
>there are, like it as not, First Amendment issues. I leave it to the lawyers
>to work out the details.
>
> From my reading of those texts, making root zone services an exclusive right
>of the USG would require a new Constitutional Amendment. There is a lot of
>reasoning behind this, for which, lawyers are best equiped to argue.
>
>It is also worthy to note that none of the Federal Services contractors
>(USPS, IRS, etc.) have any exclusive rights. Notably, the USPS has to
>compete with FedEx and UPS, among others. Even at the height of Ma Bell
>(AT&T) monopoly, there were no laws passed that stated that one could not,
>or was prohibited from, stringing up your own copper and going into the
>telephone business (Something MCI, in fact, did). Only the monopoly was
>regulated, not the industry.
>
>The clamour for such regulation, from Kent Crispin and company, would make
>the USG bend our Constitution near to the breaking point.
>
>--
>IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are
>encouraged to seek legal advice.
>--
>ROELAND M.J. MEYER
>Managing Director
>Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
>TEL: +001 925 373 3954
>FAX: +001 925 373 9781
>http://www.mhsc.com
>mailto: [email-masked]
>
>
>
> > From: NameCritic [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 3:11 AM
> >
> > He is correct. No law can be passed against it that would stand up
> > Internationally. The US cannot dictate what other countries do. If an
> > alternate root was located in France or some other country
> > then the law
> > would have no effect whatsoever. I would really like to see
> > people quit
> > treating this as if the US is the only concern here. The Internet is
> > INTERNATIONAL. International Network. Got it now? A US law can only be
> > effective in the US. Alternate roots can be located anywhere.
> > There are even
> > a lot of countries that would welcome it and the last time I
> > checked they
> > don't abide by US Law.
> >
> > What would ICANN do then? Have all the users who surf the
> > alternate roots
> > arrested? I wouldn't put it past them, due to their arrogant
> > attitude that
> > one government contract somehow empowered them to make the
> > rules the world
> > will all now live by. The ICANN BoD needs a reality check.
> > They aren't that
> > big or that powerful.
> >
> > There will always be other root systems get used to it, deal
> > with it, and
> > get over the ego rush ICANN.
> >
> >
> > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 2:17 AM
> >
> > > Hello Roeland,
> > >
> > > One thing you missed.
> > >
> > > If a law was passed making alternative roots illegal (Something I'm
> > > not saying I agree with) it would be understood that
> > current root and
> > > the contractors who are trusted with operating it, would receive
> > > exemption from antitrust and other relevant laws.
> > >
> > > Your statement "AND NO LAW CAN BE PASSED TO PREVENT IT" is not
> > > actually true.  There are no constitutional issues necessarily that
> > > would be prevent it.
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, May 29, 2001, 1:53:51 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > >
> > > > The problem Harald, is that the ICANN doesn't have the
> > authority to make
> > > > that stick and it cannot be given such authority, in the
> > US, without
> > > > violating some fundimental civil rights (laws). Neither
> > can the USG
> > accede,
> > > > to ICANN, such power. They are prohibited by the US
> > Constitution. ICANN
> > *is*
> > > > a California corporation and the USG *does* control the
> > root, currently.
> > The
> > > > only way out of that dilemma is for ICANN to start a root
> > registry and
> > > > publish their own inclusive root zone (something that I've been
> > suggesting
> > > > for a while now). But, that makes the ICANN no better
> > than any other
> > > > inclusive root registry. The only difference will be that
> > the USG has
> > > > already given it a healthy startup boost.
> > >
> > > > It *still* does not preclude the appearance of competitive root
> > registries
> > > > AND NO LAW CAN BE PASSED TO PREVENT IT. Regardless of
> > what mr. Crispin
> > would
> > > > like, the US is still not a totalitarian regime. Even were it so,
> > > > jurisdiction outside of the US cannot be compelled to
> > recognise such a
> > law.
> > > > We do not yet, have a world government and are not likely
> > to have one in
> > our
> > > > lifetimes.
> > >
> > > > Given that incontrovertible condition, multiple root zones are
> > inevitable if
> > > > market forces present an attractive opportunity for them
> > to exist. In
> > this
> > > > case, the only strategy that makes sense is for ICANN to
> > present such an
> > > > attractive value-proposition that the market is satisfied
> > with their
> > > > offering and won't support other root zones.
> > >
> > > > In short, it becomes a monopoly. Well, in the US, there's
> > a problem with
> > > > that too. It's called the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, among
> > others. This
> > means
> > > > that there will be at least two more root registries.
> > There's more,
> > history
> > > > has shown that any market will have at least 3-5% of it's
> > members using
> > > > whatever competitor is available, simply to be
> > cantankerous, if noting
> > else.
> > > > What this means is that any monopolist can never gain
> > more than 95% of a
> > > > given market. This may be sufficient for most historical
> > monopolies, but
> > it
> > > > means that multiple roots are a god given certainty. Whom
> > else do you
> > think
> > > > has that last 5% ... frosty the snowman? No sir, it's
> > competitive root
> > > > registries and 5% of 5M names, times $6 bucks a whack, is still a
> > sizable
> > > > chunk of change and Moore's law has dropped operations
> > cost down to
> > almost
> > > > zip ($0).
> > >
> > > > Business drives technology ... always has and always
> > will. It is not the
> > > > place of the technologist to tell the market what it can
> > do. The market
> > will
> > > > flatly reject that. If the technologist doesn't/can't
> > deliver then the
> > > > market will find another technologist that can/will. Kent
> > Crispin's
> > paper is
> > > > nothing more than a technologist's excuse for not getting
> > the job done.
> > If
> > > > the ICANN is stupid enough to accept it as gospel then it
> > is finished.
> > It's
> > > > unenforcible, unimplementable, and just plain dumb. To
> > make matters
> > worse,
> > > > he does not present a single problem that does not already have an
> > > > implemented solution. In short, it's almost pure FUD.
> > >
> > > > Thank you. I'm sorry about going on so long.
> > >
> > > >> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > >> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 11:55 PM
> > > >>
> > > >> At 00:40 29.05.2001 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> > > >> >Smart service providers won't offer highly
> > > >> >conflicted names, most consumers won't buy them,
> > > >> >and ISPs won't support them. They will converge, or
> > > >> >die. Domain names have no value otherwise. You
> > > >> >can't play with them, or hang them on your wall.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks for making it clear that you think a single root will
> > > >> eventually occur.
> > > >>
> > > >> It is clear that we have agreement even among those who do
> > > >> not want to
> > > >> admit it that there needs to be a way to get to the point
> > > >> where one name
> > > >> has only one resolution in any DNS service.
> > > >>
> > > >> ICANN has proposed one way: strict regulation of entries into
> > > >> a single
> > > >> root, no conflicts allowed.
> > > >> Name.space, ORSC and others have proposed another way: first
> > > >> come first
> > > >> served, talk until tired whenever conflicts occur.
> > > >> New.net has proposed a third way: sell what you want, and
> > > >> hope to get so
> > > >> many customers that the others won't dare challenge you.
> > > >>
> > > >> I personally think that ICANN's way is fairer and less
> > > >> painful than the
> > > >> other current proposals; I may be in a minority on that.
>--
>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" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #501
************************