Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #509
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Sunday, June 3 2001             Volume 01 : Number 509

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

Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 20:11:46 -0400 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

I don't think that the only purpose of an SO is board seats, Milton. You are
pretty savvy about the differences between the gTLDS and the ccTLDs and how
all the DNSO work is targeted toward gTLDs.  Makes sense to me that the
ccTLDs want to have a place to work on "their" stuff within ICANN.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 8:04 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: GA
Subject: RE: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

No one I know supports the idea of any DNSO group taking seats from the at
large.  We must move in very different circles!

On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I think the headline is a mischaracterisation.  The ccTLD move has
received
> support from the BC, ISPC, IPC, in a briefing they held today. I expect
> supporting statements to be made in the public meeting. Everyone I've
talked
> to seems to agree that they are already doing so much work on the issues
> which are different from gTLD issues -- in essence almost operating as an
> SO. 
> 
> Marilyn
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce James [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 1:30 PM
> To: GA
> Subject: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN
> 
> 
> Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN:
> 
>  http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/19395.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
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's hot here.<--
- --
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, 2 Jun 2001 20:12:56 -0400 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

Whoops, I meant to address this to both Milton and Michael, sorry about
that! It is late here!

- -----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA 
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 8:12 PM
To: 'Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law'
Cc: GA
Subject: RE: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

I don't think that the only purpose of an SO is board seats, Milton. You are
pretty savvy about the differences between the gTLDS and the ccTLDs and how
all the DNSO work is targeted toward gTLDs.  Makes sense to me that the
ccTLDs want to have a place to work on "their" stuff within ICANN.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 8:04 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: GA
Subject: RE: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

No one I know supports the idea of any DNSO group taking seats from the at
large.  We must move in very different circles!

On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I think the headline is a mischaracterisation.  The ccTLD move has
received
> support from the BC, ISPC, IPC, in a briefing they held today. I expect
> supporting statements to be made in the public meeting. Everyone I've
talked
> to seems to agree that they are already doing so much work on the issues
> which are different from gTLD issues -- in essence almost operating as an
> SO. 
> 
> Marilyn
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce James [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 1:30 PM
> To: GA
> Subject: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN
> 
> 
> Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN:
> 
>  http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/19395.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
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's hot here.<--
- --
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: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 02:46:46 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, at 19:19 [=GMT-0400], Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I think the headline is a mischaracterisation.  The ccTLD move has received
> support from the BC, ISPC, IPC, in a briefing they held today. I expect
> supporting statements to be made in the public meeting. Everyone I've talked
> to seems to agree that they are already doing so much work on the issues
> which are different from gTLD issues -- in essence almost operating as an
> SO. 

A lot of work has been going on on the NCDNHC for years. Should they
get a couple of seats on the ICANN board too? No, the BC etc. will not
support that. What does this support mean???

Really, the ccTLds are part of the DNSO. By *definition*. 

> 
> Marilyn
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce James [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 1:30 PM
> To: GA
> Subject: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN
> 
> 
> Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN:
> 
>  http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/19395.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
> --
> 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: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 21:21:32 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: ATT tries "Damage Control" to: Re: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

Marilyn and all assembly members,

  Form other non press related reports I am getting from our members
attending in Stolkholm your words here seem to be more like "Damage
Control" rather than substantive in nature.  But very nicely done none the
less here Merilyn!  >;)

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I don't think that the only purpose of an SO is board seats, Milton. You are
> pretty savvy about the differences between the gTLDS and the ccTLDs and how
> all the DNSO work is targeted toward gTLDs.  Makes sense to me that the
> ccTLDs want to have a place to work on "their" stuff within ICANN.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 8:04 PM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Cc: GA
> Subject: RE: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN
>
> No one I know supports the idea of any DNSO group taking seats from the at
> large.  We must move in very different circles!
>
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
> > I think the headline is a mischaracterisation.  The ccTLD move has
> received
> > support from the BC, ISPC, IPC, in a briefing they held today. I expect
> > supporting statements to be made in the public meeting. Everyone I've
> talked
> > to seems to agree that they are already doing so much work on the issues
> > which are different from gTLD issues -- in essence almost operating as an
> > SO.
> >
> > Marilyn
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruce James [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 1:30 PM
> > To: GA
> > Subject: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN
> >
> >
> > Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN:
> >
> >  http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/19395.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
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                        -->It's hot here.<--
> --
> 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

- --
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: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 12:33:03 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA-ROOTS - Denial, Dismissal and Dogma.

On Sat, 2 Jun 2001 19:59:13 +0200 (CEST), Marc Schneiders wrote:

> Well, now we are not even supposed to discuss alt roots anymore in the
> DNSO. Or did I get that wrong?

You are very sharp, Marc.  I had to think about it for a while but came to
the same conclusion as you did.  It may be worse than we anticipate.

(1)    The Names Council is looking to save money.  That's what they say,
anyway.  I see that as quite false.  In fact, yesterday's webcast made in
quite clear they had a "slush fund" which they could draw on if needed.  And
ICANN should fund them, anyway.

BTW Was I mistaken or did Verisign just cough up $100,000?  What was that
for?  And what did Verisign get in return?  Do you believe pure generosity
of spirit !!!

(2)    There is censorship afoot.  Purportedly because of (1) the Names
Council wants to close down some lists.  They already suggested closing
GA-FULL and I reckon that's just being held over until after the Sotckholm
conference.  The one sublist that was really taking off was GA-ROOTS.  So
naturally naysayers attacked it -- a good excuse.

(3)    Alternate Roots !!  Probably the most critical issue to face ICANN in
the world today.  In fact, they have the potential to completely undermine
the whole structure.  And I really don't care if it is having *right now* --
it certainly COULD and I think WILL.  But the argument is that the subject
is *out of scope*.   Perhaps a standard line from ICANN staff.

But it's a clever trick.  It means that the Names Council CAN and almost
certainly WILL close down the GA-ROOTS mailing list at any time they like.

(4)     The ICANN CEO, Stuart Lynn came up with his own policy statement.
This received mixed reviews but they were mostly negative.  Apart from the
content, I think he made several mistakes in his approach.  But he's new to
the job and doesn't quite understand all the dynamics yet.  My guess is that
Kent Crispin wrote the statement and Stuart appended his name afterwards.
Whatever the truth the ICANN view is quite clear.  Wrong but clear ;-)

If he had any sense, he would have arranged for ICANN to pay my airfare to
Stockholm and then sat down with the General Assembly, the SOs and all to
thrash out a "bottom-up" statement.  Instead he chose to take the ICANN
staff approach -- denial, dismissal and dogma.

Putting the lack of funding together with the "out of scope" argument, and
lack of support from ICANN, it is inevitable that the Names Council will
move to scrap the GA-ROOTS mailing list as soon as it can be arranged.

And that will be sooner than you think.  Maybe Monday.

One more point.  It has been argued that my intention in setting up a Roots
mailing list was to "capture" the debate.  More FUD.  Moving the debate to a
separate list just "allowed" the debate room to breathe.  It also sheltered
the main GA list from a lot of hostility.

Yes, they will ban GA-ROOTS.  It's a certainty.  But neither ICANN or the
Names Council can stop the debate on the subject of Alternate Roots.  All
that will happen it that it will continue to dominate the discussion on the
main GA mailing list.  Where it was before.  A very untidy resolution.

But the debate will continue where it matters.  Out there in the DNS !!

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

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

Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 00:20:28 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] With all due respect Mr. Froomkin

Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
http://www.dnsga.org

With all due respect Mr. Froomkin:

I can agree that the DNSGA website could be clearer regarding that it is
a new organization founded August 2000.

As you know, as demonstrated within ICANN and the DNSO, it takes time
and a lot of energy to develop working constituencies that are able to
produce valid consensus results. The DNSGA is at its very early stages
of developing working constituencies, whereas, this is the case with
most organizations working on DNS policy and standards. The DNSGA
currently does not know exactly how it will fit in the domain name
industry or what the future may hold.

The DNSGA is building a vehicle for advancing DNS policy and standards.
Currently, the DNSGA is working within the ICANN processes and the DNSO,
and the DNSGA tries to set forth constructive comments and positions
based upon information it receives. The DNSGA is not mature enough right
now to provide a public forum on its own, but at the same time the DNSGA
is developing its organization and internal structure toward providing
an effective public forum with working constituencies that will produce
valid consensus results. The DNSGA is working toward providing open,
fair and objective processes for its positions and actions.

I founded the DNSGA because I realized that the ICANN processes can be
improved upon. I was not aware of the DNSO when I founded the DNSGA,
whereas, most people unfamiliar with ICANN are not aware of the DNSO. I
submitted an ICANN Registrar Accreditation Application for a domain name
registrar company that I am associated with and I witnessed firsthand
the ICANN New gTLD Registry Application processes. I then realized that
the ICANN processes appear biased, unfair and nonobjective and that the
ICANN processes can be improved.

The DNSGA is a Nevada not-for-profit corporation with offices in
Washington, DC, Buenos Aires AR, Sydney AU, Vancouver BC, Paris FR,
Frankfurt GR, Hong Kong, Narita JP, Riyadh SA and Oxfordshire UK. The
DNSGA currently has less than 1000 members of which most are not
categorized and their associations and specific interests have not been
identified which contributes to the DNSGA's immaturity. The DNSGA is
also accepting applications from interested parties for key positions
within the DNSGA.

The reasoning behind your comments are not clear and appear less than
fair. The DNSGA has not held itself out to be anything more than a
reporting entity at this time. The DNSGA website clearly indicates that
web pages you referred to are currently being updating. You are also
aware that the DNSGA legal attempted to contact you regarding your
inquiries, however, for some reason they were unable to connect with you
and therefore gave up trying to connect with you.

It would seem that a constructive approach for someone at your level
would be to address DNSGA comments or positions in a way that does not
appear disruptive. Instead, it appears that you are attacking the DNSGA
for no good reason and without cause which does not make any sense
coming from you. The DNSGA has not attacked you or your positions.

You are aware of DNSGA participation within the DNSO and you have not
indicated any problems with DNSGA topics, comments or positions. It may
be the case that you first learned about the "ccTLDs to leave DNSO"
topic through DNSGA email sent to the DNSO:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg02744.html

The DNSGA is trying to do good here and welcomes the participation,
comments and input from Internet stakeholders and interested parties.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=189&mode=thread&order=0

- --
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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 02:09:41 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO GA Chair Danny Younger

I am in attendance at the ICANN meetings in Stockholm.  I feel compelled
to mention that it was a privilege to watch DNSO GA Chair, Danny
Younger, in action presenting the GA constituency case and review to the
Names Counsel.  Mr. Younger in my opinion did a most professional and
outstanding job in representing the GA with what he had to work with.
In my opinion, the GA constituency chose the right person as chair
person for the GA and everyone here should feel honored that Mr. Younger
accepted the responsibility of representing the GA.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

- --
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, 02 Jun 2001 23:25:41 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Whois database

Picking up on an old theme as I browse, there was a bill
in the U.S. Congress that would prohibit copyright on
data bases, mostly to protect scientific access to scientific
data, but should apply here also.  Don't know the status of
that bill right now, but someone might want to look it up.

Bill Lovell

Sandy Harris wrote:

> News story on NSI selling the whois database information:
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/531732.asp?0nm=-1AP&cp1=1
>
> Best read, I think, in conjunction with Auerbach's rant on
> the whois database, ponit three under "What I would say to
> the House Commerce Committee were I invited to testify" on
> the menu page at:
>
> http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/index.htm
>
> I'd say one of the more useful things ICANN could do to
> improve the net would be to make it clear to the contractors
> that treating the data they manage for the net as proprietary
> (let alone selling it!) is completely unnacceptable.
>
> While they're at it, ask them to fix whois which has, in my
> view, been broken since shortly after NSI started running it.
>
> Even if a single central whois covering the whole net is no
> longer practical, we want one broken down by TLD so things
> can be found easily, not by registry. That is certainly
> administratively convenient for the contractors, but not
> remarkably useful to users.
>
> To my mind, questions of getting the existing system to do
> things right (fixing whois, getting rid of board squatters,
> censuring stupid decisions like bodacioustats.com, getting
> ready for DNSsec deployment) are as interesting as questions
> of fixing the system itself (adding constituencies, etc) and
> far more likely to produce useful results soon.
>
> I'm emphatically not saying we should give up trying to change
> the system, but it may be more productive to focus on specific
> problems like this NSI action or the absurd tatas decision.
> --
> 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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 02:51:05 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Whois database

Bill and all assembly members,

  I am familiar with that bill.  Our staff is tracking it.  It is is
still
in subcommittee....  I personally don't think it has a chance of
passing "As is"...

William S. Lovell wrote:

> Picking up on an old theme as I browse, there was a bill
> in the U.S. Congress that would prohibit copyright on
> data bases, mostly to protect scientific access to scientific
> data, but should apply here also.  Don't know the status of
> that bill right now, but someone might want to look it up.
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> Sandy Harris wrote:
>
> > News story on NSI selling the whois database information:
> >
> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/531732.asp?0nm=-1AP&cp1=1
> >
> > Best read, I think, in conjunction with Auerbach's rant on
> > the whois database, ponit three under "What I would say to
> > the House Commerce Committee were I invited to testify" on
> > the menu page at:
> >
> > http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/index.htm
> >
> > I'd say one of the more useful things ICANN could do to
> > improve the net would be to make it clear to the contractors
> > that treating the data they manage for the net as proprietary
> > (let alone selling it!) is completely unnacceptable.
> >
> > While they're at it, ask them to fix whois which has, in my
> > view, been broken since shortly after NSI started running it.
> >
> > Even if a single central whois covering the whole net is no
> > longer practical, we want one broken down by TLD so things
> > can be found easily, not by registry. That is certainly
> > administratively convenient for the contractors, but not
> > remarkably useful to users.
> >
> > To my mind, questions of getting the existing system to do
> > things right (fixing whois, getting rid of board squatters,
> > censuring stupid decisions like bodacioustats.com, getting
> > ready for DNSsec deployment) are as interesting as questions
> > of fixing the system itself (adding constituencies, etc) and
> > far more likely to produce useful results soon.
> >
> > I'm emphatically not saying we should give up trying to change
> > the system, but it may be more productive to focus on specific
> > problems like this NSI action or the absurd tatas decision.
> > --
> > 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

- --
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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 02:55:57 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UPDATE: ICANN-Stockholm DNSO Meetings Complete, Public Forum Tomorrow

Bruce an dall assembly members,

Bruce James wrote:

> Greetings!
>
> Today's meetings of the DNSO General Assembly and Names Council are now
> complete, and archives of these sessions have been posted in the online
> meeting archive at <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive>.
> Archives include complete RealVideo recordings, agendas, scribe's notes,
> documents and presentations used, real-time questions received, and online
> discussion logs.

  Seems the scribes notes are not resolving see:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/scribe-ga-060201.html
for more info...

>
>
> Meetings resume tomorrow at 8:30AM local time with the ICANN Public Forum.
> To join the webcast, go to <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm>.
> During and just before webcasts, a prominent link on this page will allow
> you to enter the remote participation area.  Please be sure to join us
> online at the proper time, being aware of time zone differences.  Links at
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm> can help you convert
> Stockholm time to local time in your area.
>
> In preparation for the meetings, you may want to review the meeting agenda,
> as posted at <http://www.icann.org/stockholm/#agenda>.  From that page,
> you'll also find public comment spaces on major agenda items.
>
> If you miss some or all of the Public Forum or if you wish to review content
> generated by the Public Forum, be advised that complete archives of the
> session will be posted at
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive> upon its conclusion.
>
> Access to the remote participation system requires a 28.8kbps or faster
> modem, with best access over 56k or faster connections.  Access to the live
> audio and video feeds requires the RealPlayer, version 5.0 or later (G2 or
> later strongly recommended), available for free from
> <http://www.real.com/products/player>, or the Windows Media Player,
> available for free from <http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmedia>.  Access to
> the real-time discussion and dynamically-updated scribe's notes areas
> requires a JAVA-capable browser (IE or Netscape version 3 or later) or a
> dedicated IRC client.
>
> Finally, if you're not already subscribed to ICANN's announcements list, you
> may find it helpful to join in order to receive important future
> announcements from ICANN.  See <http://www.icann.org/announcements> for
> instructions.
>
> We look forward to seeing you online during the meetings!
>
> Ben Edelman
> Berkman Center for Internet & Society
> Harvard Law School
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu>
>
> --
> 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

- --
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: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 01:54:12 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO GA Chair Danny Younger

Hello Derek,

Sunday, June 03, 2001, 2:09:41 AM, Derek Conant wrote:

> I am in attendance at the ICANN meetings in Stockholm.  I feel compelled
> to mention that it was a privilege to watch DNSO GA Chair, Danny
> Younger, in action presenting the GA constituency case and review to the
> Names Counsel.  Mr. Younger in my opinion did a most professional and
> outstanding job in representing the GA with what he had to work with.
> In my opinion, the GA constituency chose the right person as chair
> person for the GA and everyone here should feel honored that Mr. Younger
> accepted the responsibility of representing the GA.

Some of us will hold out our own opinions on that matter.

- -- 
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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 05:59:46 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO GA Chair Danny Younger

I participated via webcast, and I agree completely.  Although I have had my
differences with Danny, I was proud of his performance yesterday!  I think
he performed marvellously well!  Good job, Danny!

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network, Inc.

Derek Conant wrote:

> I am in attendance at the ICANN meetings in Stockholm.  I feel compelled
> to mention that it was a privilege to watch DNSO GA Chair, Danny
> Younger, in action presenting the GA constituency case and review to the
> Names Counsel.  Mr. Younger in my opinion did a most professional and
> outstanding job in representing the GA with what he had to work with.
> In my opinion, the GA constituency chose the right person as chair
> person for the GA and everyone here should feel honored that Mr. Younger
> accepted the responsibility of representing the GA.
>
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 06:02:35 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ccTLD-Communique

Communiqué of the ccTLD Constituency
Stockholm, 1 June 2001

  http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/ccTLD-communique.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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 07:39:52 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] With regard to the ccSO proposal

To be efficient I used the conference room message terminal during the
ICANN Board Public Comment period today at Stockholm, however, my
on-topic statement was not read to the Board.  My written statement to
the Board went as follows:

- --

With regard to the ccSO proposal, a question that may be asked is, is
the ccTLD group diverse enough to qualify for its own SO?

If the ccSO proposal is accepted, when will there be a gTLD SO, and/or
Registry and Registrar SOs, or a VeriSign SO for that matter?

It seems that a group applying for SO status should be as diverse as the
DNSO itself.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

- --
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: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 21:46:21 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Why A General Assembly Matters

Why A General Assembly Matters
By David R. Johnson
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/johnson-ga.html

This room represents a collision between previously separate worlds.

            Technologists
            Trademark Lawyers
            Big Businesses
            Entrepreneurs
            Non Profits
            Academics
            Governments

The question presented is whether the collision will produce a destructive
explosion or, instead, cross fertilization and a new emergent form of order
for a global medium.

To ask whether the General Assembly matters, and why, is also to ask "What
IS the General Assembly" -- and, also, inescapably, what is the Names
Council, the DNSO and the ICANN Board?

The original idea of the GA was that of a body with no barriers to entry,
reflecting all of the stakeholders that might know enough or care enough to
come together to discuss domain name policy.

            It was not just a "constituency of last resort" for the
disaffected whose interests were not reflected in a formal designation of
"constituency" status by the ICANN Board.

            It was everyone involved in domain name policy -- all the
constituencies and everyone else. (Indeed, the "Paris Draft" model would
allow constituencies to freely form -- thereby providing flexible assurance
that all stakeholders had a voice)

            It didn't itself select Names Council members (that was left to
organized constituencies) -- but that wasn't viewed as particularly
significant, because the Names Council was just a "steering committee" --
not a top down legislative body.

            It nominated (rather than directly electing) candidates for the
ICANN Board, but, again, even selection of ICANN Board members to represent
the DNSO was not viewed as that significant -- because the Board could only
act (except in emergencies) based on recommendations reflecting a documented
consensus among impacted stakeholders -- resulting from a process that was
hoped to occur within the General Assembly itself.

So, from the outset, the General Assembly has been the most important --
and, unfortunately, also the least effective -- institution in ICANN.

Where does this concept of documented consensus come from? And why is IT
important?

Well, when you think about it hard enough, it becomes clear that documented
consensus among impacted stakeholders is the only possible source of
legitimacy for ICANN-- and the only source of power it can exercise (other
than the "hold up" power to make new applicants for registry or registrar
contracts agree to anything at all as a condition for entry into
business! -- not exactly a legitimate source of power).  Let me explain.

ICANN's power -- and core mission -- comes from just 2 pages of the new (and
old) gTLD contracts. Look carefully at 4.1.1 and 4.3.1. Every registry and
registrar must promise to comply with Consensus Policies. And these must be
"demonstrated" by not only action of the Board, and a recommendation of the
Names Council but also by a written report.

The word "consensus" has been abused a lot. And some think it is a
fuzzy-minded concept. But what it means is that almost everyone
substantially impacted by a policy is willing to go along with it -- and
that opposition is so minor or irrational or limited to those without a
substantial stake that it can justifiably be overridden.

Consensus is a something that has to be assessed in the context of a
particular policy and a particular set of stakeholders. But it is a VERY
concrete idea. And it will certainly be tested in very concrete cases -- as
the Independent Review Panel decides whether any particular attempt to
enforce a policy against reluctant registries or registrars is supportable
under this key contractual language.

It's a deal that makes sense. It's the only deal that makes sense. No
registry or registrar business would ever willingly or rationally agree to
do whatever a future Names Council or ICANN Board, however elected, might
decide! No impacted party would willingly or rationally agree to be BOUND to
comply with unknown future policies just because (even if!) they were
developed in a transparent and open process -- or just because they are
supported by alleged "experts".

The power of ICANN comes from this very simple contract. The legitimacy of
ICANN also comes from this contract. Because those who are bound to follow
ICANN policies have agreed not to oppose those most impacted parties can go
along with, ICANN can claim that there is a good fit -- a congruence --
between those who make the rules and those who are impacted by them. It
doesn't have to claim to be a democratically elected world government. It
doesn't have to claim to be "expert" about the non-technical policy matters
it regularly decides. It simply has to base its policies on a clear showing
that those bound by and impacted by them are willing, at least grudgingly,
to go along. And, most importantly, it doesn't have to make centralized
policy at all unless there is general agreement that there is a need for
centralized policy -- so the concept of consensus provides a good answer to
the key question when we should seek central control and when we should
allow decentralization and diversity and market competition.

You'll notice there is only one actual "consensus policy" currently
mentioned in the contracts. And that's the UDRP -- sort of a grandfathered
deal that was worked out before the full mechanisms for development of
consensus policies -- and enforcing them via contracts -- had been worked
out. That might reflect the lack of any need for policies even on the
minimum standards needed to protect interoperability of the domain name
system. But, actually, more accurately, it reflects a lack of work by those
in this room to engage in the true dialogue needed to find commonly
agreeable policy solutions to some real problems.

I said the (a) General Assembly is important. I didn't say it wasn't broken.

So the question we all have to ask ourselves today is:  are we going to give
up on the whole idea of consensus policies?

Does the recent decision by the ccTLDs suggest that we'll have a whole set
of new "supporting organizations" with every interest group (well, every
group powerful enough to insist on getting an SO) will whisper directly in
the Board's ear -- producing an ICANN Board that acts like a global
legislature?

We are clearly on the cusp of a major institutional decision.

But before you turn the General Assembly into just another "constituency" --
albeit for the underrepresented group of individual domain name holders. And
before you throw it out altogether in favor of an "at large" "membership" --
no matter how openly formed and interactive. And before you give up on the
idea of consensus policies -- consider the consequences.

There is no way that the governments of the world will allow ICANN to
pretend to be the regulator of the domain name system, based solely on the
fact that its board consists of good and smart people, or based solely on
the fact that its meetings are open, or even based on the possible
(unlikely) fact that its Board is elected by global, democratic means.

There is no way that the registries or registries -- or anyone else for that
matter -- will agree to follow any and all policies any future Board of
ICANN may adopt. It's just not a "social contract" anyone would accept --
unless they thought they could control most of the seats (which would be a
long term delusion even for the presently powerful factions).

And, without any contractual or other power to simply force its policies
down on others (I'll give the why Louis matters talk later), ICANN has
neither power nor legitimacy -- and this bold effort to keep the global
internet out of the clutches of stifling local, governmental regulation will
surely fail.

So I challenge you all to do three very important things -- while you are
assembled in this most important body of ICANN, this General Assembly.

1. Create a consensus policy on something. Anything! I think it could be one
reflecting the need for a minor mid-course correction in the uDRP. We need a
real specimen to show that the collection of all impacted parties, meeting
through the ICANN process, and talking together -- not just waiting for the
Board or staff to make top down decisions -- can agree on something (and
that all can agree to be bound to go along with that something, even if they
individually lack enthusiasm, precisely because they mostly all agree upon
it).

2. Encourage the Board to establish a "thin" ICANN -- one that sets minimum
standards on issues that really matter to interoperability and then gets out
of the way. A "thick" ICANN -- one that purports to be the sole semantic
gardener of the name space, will face irresistible (and unsatisfiable!)
demands that it become "legitimate" by somehow getting "elected" to
"represent" all the parties in the world who might be impacted by decisions
about what strings, what business models, what business terms, are to be
allowed. We just can't collectively manufacture that amount of power or
legitimacy. In contrast, a "thin" ICANN will not claim to be the SOLE
GARDENER. It will be more like a TRELLIS that allows many different kinds of
plants to grow and prosper -- allowing users ultimately to make the choice
of which to enjoy.

3. WATCH closely when the Names Council meets (this afternoon) and when the
Board meets (tomorrow and the next day). Ask yourself whether the Names
Council is behaving like the "steering committee" it is supposed to be. As
yourself whether the Board is trying to foster the development of real
consensus policies -- or reserving to itself the right and duty to make
policy based on their own judgment (to be sure the best judgment of
dedicated contributors), as if they had been elected to serve as a
deliberative legislature on everyone's behalf. If they show these
(understandable) tendencies to think they don't have to demonstrate
consensus by means of documented process that occurs in discussions among
stakeholders -- remind them and yourself about what the contract -- the only
source of ICANN's power or legitimacy -- says.

The consensus policies that the General Assembly process could create would
be valuable things indeed, even if few in number. In a democracy, when you
have a disagreement, you count votes (hopefully accurately). In a
consensus-based system, in the face of disagreement, you must begin a direct
dialogue among the impacted parties. That's the kind of process that let's
everyone concerned find the highest ground.

Even if we all split up into separate "supporting organizations" or
differing types of "members" -- we'll still face the key question: do we
want to try to talk together as a group, to find commonly acceptable
solutions?

So even if we abolished the DNSO and the General Assembly altogether, we
would have to re-invent them. Because, given the collision of worlds I
talked about at the beginning, there is just no way we can have any power or
legitimacy unless we get the "consent of the governed".

In cyberspace, it turns out the "social contract" is a real contract --
making real people promise not unreasonably to oppose the shared views of
similarly impacted parties -- and REQUIRING us all to collaborate (in
working groups and task forces) to deliberate together (and reach out to
everyone who isn't here) until we can find and document solutions (to
problems that need centralized solutions) upon which most everyone can
agree. We really can't succeed if we go into "seat claiming" or "power
brokering" mode. We really can't, legitimately, dodge this duty by
purporting to "elect" a set of representatives to do that deliberation on
our behalf -- because those who don't like the resulting rules will always
be able to claim they were excluded and, more importantly, will be able to
avoid any duty to comply with them.

The General Assembly has always been envisioned as the only place where we
can make the specifics of that shared contract real. Don't give up on it.
Don't give up on the ideal of real consensus policy-making. It's the only
legitimate social contract we have -- or are likely to get. It's a long-term
relationship contract that we all must constantly work to modify and adapt
over time. It's time we started to do just that.

- --
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 #509
************************