Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #511
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Monday, June 4 2001             Volume 01 : Number 511

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

Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> The ccTLDs came into ICANN very early, and have worked within the process --
> making substantive and critical contributions. From what I have seen, they
> have held many meetings, organized across the ccTLDs, both regionally and in
> conjunction with ICANN's meeting.
>
> Their issues are broader and significantly different from the gTLDs, which
> is the primary work so far of the DNSO.  They have a relationship directly
> to their governments (respectively), which the gTLDs don't, etc, etc.

One might also argue that Registry operators have significantly different
issues than Registrar operators. So then should seperate Registry and
Registrar supporting organizations be created as well? ISPs certainly face
differing issues than any of the aforementioned groups. So should they too
form their own supporting organization?

Quite simply the secession of the ccTLD operators from the DNSO, which was
intended to be an overarching body that promulgated domain name policies
would seem to indicate a "no-confidence" vote of the manner in which the
ccTLD operators have been treated by the ICANN board and through the current
ICANN structure. While it is certainly interesting to witness the sudden
"support" they had for such a move all along you'll pardon me if I hold a
somewhat contrary view of what led us to this event.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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 14:58:49 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ccTLD-Communique

Bruce and all assembly members,

  I wonder if the ICANN BoD is in agreement with this communique?

Bruce James wrote:

> 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

- --
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 17:40:46 -0400
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [I CAN][PUBLIC-PRIVATE]Open Mic

Sotiris,

I will by happy to read this question in the public forum tomorrow.

Vint

>Directors and fellow GA members:
>
>Considering the amount of money generated and exchanged within, and about, the domain name market and industry, will the ontological status of domain names be legally established anytime
>in the near future?  Are domain names property or not?  If so, what kind of property, and whose?
>
>thank you.
>
>BTW: Exactly one 1/2 hour for public comments?  That is quite simply outrageous.  Considering the amount of time the commercials for Tucows and RealNames got in the last couple days, I
>think this is a totally ludicrous gesture, don't you?  Why bother?  

I agree it was not enough and I am going to work on increasing the time for public participation.

>Sincerely,
>
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>        Hermes Network, Inc.

- --
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 22:32:03 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO GA Chair Danny Younger

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
>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!
>

Usually I avoid the "me too" statements, but I will make an exception.

I agree with Sotiris, Danny did a great job.
Not only with the GA yesterday, but also in publicizing the ga-root list 
today. Expect new subscribers, methinks.

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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 14:09:58 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [I CAN][PUBLIC-PRIVATE]Open Mic 

Ben Edelman wrote:

> In light of this evening's extended discussion of other topics, the Open Mic time (previously scheduled for 5:00-6:00pm on 6/3) has been rescheduled to tomorrow morning, 6/4, at 9am.
>
> The revised schedule for June 4 is as follows:
>
> 8:30 to 8:55 - At Large Study Committee, Progress Report by Chair
> 9:00 to 9:30 - Open Microphone (public comments on all topics)
> 9:30         - ICANN Board Meeting (delayed half an hour)

Due to an overriding sense of nausea, I'm going to submit my public comment question for tomorrow right now (for the fourth time in 3 days, as I've simply despaired of posting it to the
public comment in Stockholm.)  Perhaps Dr. Vinton  Cerf will be so kind as to read it aloud for me in my absence tomorrow.

Directors and fellow GA members:

Considering the amount of money generated and exchanged within, and about, the domain name market and industry, will the ontological status of domain names be legally established anytime
in the near future?  Are domain names property or not?  If so, what kind of property, and whose?

thank you.

BTW: Exactly one 1/2 hour for public comments?  That is quite simply outrageous.  Considering the amount of time the commercials for Tucows and RealNames got in the last couple days, I
think this is a totally ludicrous gesture, don't you?  Why bother?   In fact, I don't think I'm going to offer my head for the bean count tomorrow.  This whole situation stinks.  Vint,
you are perfectly shameless!  Such carryings-on, and in public no less...  Karl, I applaud your patience.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network, Inc.

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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 03:42:00 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] With all due respect Mr. Froomkin

Hi Michael

"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."

http://www.icannwatch.org/comments.php?op=showreply&tid=398&sid=189&pid=397&
mode=&order=&thold=#398

If Derek Conant would be kind enough to provide me with the address of his
office in Sydney, Australia, I would be more than pleased to pay a visit.  I
am sure we could have a nice chat about the interesting similarity between
his name DNSGA and that of the DNSO GA.

In fact, Jefsey Morfin or Elisabeth Porteneuve might like to call into his
office in Paris, France.  The Vancouver office is probably near Joe Baptista
or Gary Osbourne.  Funny thing, I'm sure we have friends in all of those
great cities.  I still have family in the UK and I'm going there later on
this year.  And I always wanted to visit Oxford University.

Perhaps, Derek had better let us have the addresses of all of his offices !!

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] With all due respect Mr. Froomkin

> Since my name is invoked in the subject line, I feel I should explain
> that readers wondering what on earth this is about may wish to consult
> http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=189
>
> Since I didn't start this topic on this list, and don't think it belongs
> here either, I don't plan to follow up further on this list.
> --
> 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
>

- --
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 22:24:27 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: UPDATE: Open Mic Period Rescheduled to 6/4/01 9AM

News from Ben, that there will be a chance to submit comments tomorrow (see 
below).
My only comment, besides the compliments to Ben + the Berkman Center for a 
job well done once again (that I have seen this time from the other side of 
the Web camera), is that when addressing an international audience the US 
format for dates should be avoided.
When you say "6/4/01" in the subject line, you really mean "2001-06-04", I 
believe ;>)

Regards
Roberto

>In light of this evening's extended discussion of other topics, the Open 
>Mic time (previously scheduled for 5:00-6:00pm on 6/3) has been rescheduled 
>to tomorrow morning, 6/4, at 9am.
>
>The revised schedule for June 4 is as follows:
>
>8:30 to 8:55 - At Large Study Committee, Progress Report by Chair
>9:00 to 9:30 - Open Microphone (public comments on all topics)
>9:30         - ICANN Board Meeting (delayed half an hour)
>
>
>
>Ben Edelman
>Berkman Center for Internet & Society
>Harvard Law School
><http://cyber.law.harvard.edu>

_________________________________________________________________
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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:44:51 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-ROOTS - Denial, Dismissal and Dogma.

Patrick,

>
>(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 !!!
>

No, I don't.
But the $100K story goes back several months (a year?). They proposed to 
pony up the amount if there were matching funds from other sources.
Believe it or not, NSi has been supportive of bottom-up process since the 
beginning (maybe for their reasons, we can argue forever). Remember the 
Paris Draft, remember the attempts to empower the GA, and so on.
To let suspicions float serves no useful purpose.

>(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.
>

Two things I don't understand.
First - are you really sure you want to talk about censorship?
Second - about the GA-full, there has been a discussion in the NC early May, 
followed by a clarification on the GA list with Philip. Then this issue has 
been re-hashed by re-quoting the early May NC minutes (conveniently 
forgetting that there has been further development on the GA list in 
between). Mmmmh?!?

>(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.
>

Again?! Do you *really* think that ga-roots list is a concern to NC (or 
ICANN)? BTW, you mix up NC and ICANN. NC has declared the subject "out of 
scope" (the motivation was summarized by Milton today for whom did not hear 
the NC yesterday), while ICANN, in the person of its CEO, has produced a 
document on it (implicitely stating that it is *within scope*).

>(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.

The statement does not have the style of Kent, and Stuart is not the kind of 
person to "append" his name anywhere.
But I understand that it sounds nice to think so.

>Whatever the truth the ICANN view is quite clear.  Wrong but clear ;-)
>

The ICANN view is not only clear, but simple, and is completely in line with 
years of proclaims by the alt-root community. The alt-roots have been 
publicized for years, appealing to the right to compete against the IANA 
"monopoly".
But that was when the strategy of blocking any extension of the IANA root 
has been successful (BTW, delegitimize IANA and force the creation of a 
different body was simply another step of the roadblocking strategy). Now 
that the wind has changed, and that IANA-ICANN is about to extend the root, 
the old theory of "healthy competition" does not fit anymore, and here we go 
to plan B: a "virtual root" which is exactly what was considered evil until 
one year ago, i.e. industry self-regulation.

So, I agree that ICANN's view is clear. And moreover, it did not change in 
time.
Can the same be said about alt-root?

>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.

I would not count on it.
But again, I agree that it makes a nice effect to say it.

>
>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 !!
>

Amen.

Roberto
(wondering to whom "dogma" applies)

_________________________________________________________________
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: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 11:50:25 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] With regard to the ccSO proposal

On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 07:39:52 -0700, you wrote:

>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?

Yep - over 200 ccTLDs is very diverse.

>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?

There is a gTLD SO - it is called the DNSO.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 20:07:44 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-ROOTS - Denial, Dismissal and Dogma.

on 6/3/01 7:44 PM, Roberto Gaetano at [email-masked] wrote:
 
NC has declared the subject "out of
> scope" (the motivation was summarized by Milton today for whom did not hear
> the NC yesterday), while ICANN, in the person of its CEO, has produced a
> document on it (implicitely stating that it is *within scope*).

Excellent point. The NC, by its actions have trashed the first thing Mr Lynn
has produced personally as the new ICANN CEO. What an insult! I would be
most interested to know who had coffee with whom over the break that
preceded the NC about face.

Regards,
Joanna

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

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

Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 00:03:03 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] With all due respect Mr. Froomkin

Alternate Chair wrote:
>Hi Michael
>
>"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."
>

I do not find it difficult to believe that it has less than 1000 members, 
whose interests have not been identified.
I would estimate the size of the membership comparable with the size of the 
membership of the gTLD Constituency few months ago, with the difference that 
the gTLD members have identified their interests in full, and raised their 
membership by 200% before the Stockholm SE ;>) meeting.

Regards
Roberto
(wondering where in Greece is Frankfurt)

_________________________________________________________________
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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:43:28 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [I CAN][PUBLIC-PRIVATE]Open Mic

Vint and all assembly members,

vint cerf wrote:

> Sotiris,
>
> I will by happy to read this question in the public forum tomorrow.

  This is good Vint.  Many of us share in Sotiris's questions with direct
answers we hope...  >;)

>
>
> Vint
>
> >Directors and fellow GA members:
> >
> >Considering the amount of money generated and exchanged within, and about, the domain name market and industry, will the ontological status of domain names be legally established anytime
> >in the near future?  Are domain names property or not?  If so, what kind of property, and whose?
> >
> >thank you.
> >
> >BTW: Exactly one 1/2 hour for public comments?  That is quite simply outrageous.  Considering the amount of time the commercials for Tucows and RealNames got in the last couple days, I
> >think this is a totally ludicrous gesture, don't you?  Why bother?
>
> I agree it was not enough and I am going to work on increasing the time for public participation.

  To little too late I am afraid here Vint.  You obviously not been paying as close
of attention on the DNSO GA (This ML) as possibly you should have.  This was
brought up several times in the past year of so...

>
>
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >        Hermes Network, Inc.
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:01:55 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter 

The ICANN Board should take into consideration the demonstrated lack of
progress in the ccTLD constituency record and the ICANN Board should
take into account the admissions made by the ccTLD representatives
concerning the lack of progress in the ccTLD constituency.

It appears to me that Supporting Organization ("SO") status within ICANN
is a significant mechanism of authority that ICANN may delegate.
However, it also appears to me that SO applicants should first have
demonstrated diverse, multiple working constituencies with valid
consensus results, similar to that of the working DNSO model, and that
this important qualification or requirement should not be lost,
compromised or cheapened.

The ccTLD constituency appears to have based its demand for SO status
upon claims that all of the ccTLD members believe that the DNSO is
holding up ccTLD advancements and that ccTLD members have lost their
faith in the DNSO, and that funding the DNSO is also an issue.

Furthermore, I was in attendance at the ccTLD meeting in Stockholm and
my understanding is that only 31 ccTLD constituency members voted (if I
am wrong about this I would like to stand corrected).  It may be that
only a few ccTLD representatives are the driving force behind the SO
proposal and that the other ccTLD representatives do not understand the
process or representations.

It appears that the ccTLD constituency motion for SO status lacks the
proof that it can effectively function at the SO level.  With the
ccTLD's demonstrated lack of progress at the DNSO level, their motion
does not seem to show that they have the reasonable requirements
necessary to be awarded SO status nor the capability to represent the
international community.

This may be ICANN's opportunity to inform the ccTLD constituency, the
GAC and interested parties, what the minimum requirements are for a SO
proposal from an organization that is to represent the international
community.  The ccTLD's new founded momentum may increase with the ICANN
Board suggesting that an applicant organization should show demonstrated
diverse, multiple working constituencies with valid consensus results,
that this is first necessary to show standing for SO status.  This
should then cause the international community to pull together in an
effort to create the diverse, multiple working constituencies necessary
for a SO proposal that the ICANN Board may consider and this should
accelerate ICANN's international objectives.

My point is that the ICANN Board should consider that if it allows a
group to circumvent the DNSO without first having proof that the SO
applicant fits minimum requirements for SO status, and proof that the
applicant can effectively function at the SO level, then to award SO
status without these requirements could destabilize the integrity of the
DNSO and cause other constituencies within the DNSO to lose momentum or
give up when they fail to work within the DNSO.  The other
constituencies within the DNSO are probably also going to want SO status
if ICANN is not cautious with its decision regarding this matter.

At the ICANN meetings in Melbourne, I explained to the key ccTLD
representatives that a wholly separate organization from the ccTLD
constituency may be the proper way to advance internationalization
within ICANN.  I explained that the ccTLD constituency appears too
narrow in its scope to effectively function at a level higher than
outside of the DNSO.  I suggested that ccTLD representatives and other
interested parties should endorse a wholly separate organization from
the ccTLD constituency with demonstrated diverse, multiple working
constituencies with valid consensus results.  I explained that this is
what is probably needed first.

At the ICANN meetings in Melbourne 2001, I offered to hand the DNSGA
organization over to the key ccTLD representatives and interested
parties.  A model I imagine is an international organization (i.e. the
International DNS Consortium, IDNSC, or DNSGA, or whatever) with a broad
scope of international interests and diversity, multiple working
constituencies that produce valid consensus.  In my opinion, this is
what the ccTLD representatives and GAC should be shooting for.  And, to
protect the DNS, the ICANN Board should not accept anything less from an
applicant when considering granting an organization SO status to
represent the international community.

If what is really at work here is a scheme to convince the ccTLD
representatives to enter into the ICANN contracts at issue, the ICANN
Board should realize that the ccTLD representatives have admitted that
they are experiencing difficulty making progress concerning the
ICANN/ccTLD contracts.  Granting the ccTLD constituency SO status and
seats on the ICANN Board does not guarantee that it will be any less
difficult making progress concerning the ICANN/ccTLD contracts or less
difficult obtaining funding.  It could also make matters worse within
the ccTLD constituency.

The ccTLD representatives appear to have stopped short of submitting a
comprehensive proposal that includes reasonable and necessary
requirements to show that they deserve to be awarded SO status. With all
of this, it appears that if ICANN grants an unstable and underdeveloped
organization SO status and seats on the ICANN Board, this could cause
ICANN itself to become unstable.

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, 03 Jun 2001 21:40:38 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Questions about the ccSO Proposal

After reading the ccTLD communique and hearing more about the proposal over
the remote participation feed, I have a few thoughts and questions.

* The current DNSO is reasonably balanced between "suppliers" of DNS
services (gTLD registries, ccTLD registries, Registrars, and ISPs) and
"consumers" of DNS services (B&C, NCDNHC, IPC, and perhaps one day,
Individuals). It's not clear from the ccTLD proposal whether a proposed ccSO
would have any representation for the "consumer" side interests now
represented within the DNSO.

Registrants, of course, have the same interests in the policies of the
ccTLDs as they do with gTLDs. These interests include domain name rights,
intellectual property rights, access to market issues, and whois access and
data privacy concerns. A reasonable ccSO structure would ensure that ccSO
consensus policies were not simply the consensus of the TLD managers, but a
consensus of the larger community having reasonable interests in the ccTLDs,
including the "consumer" interests now present in the DNSO.

Depending on the issue, a "consensus policy" coming from a group of
like-minded ccTLD managers would not really be a consensus of the impacted
community, as ccTLD policies affect a wider group than the companies who
manage the ccTLD registries. Building a new structure for representation of
other stakeholders within the ccSO, however, might well prove redundant to
the existing facilities within the DNSO.

The ccTLD communique indicates that it has begun an outreach effort to some
of the existing DNSO constituencies, for which the ccTLDs should be
commended. Those discussions need to continue, and I'll be interested to
hear how the ccTLDs propose to address this representation/consensus issue.

* Under the current ICANN bylaws, each Supporting Organization effectively
has "veto power" over policy initiatives originating within other Supporting
Organizations. ("...the Board shall accept the recommendations of a
Supporting Organization if the Board finds that the recommended policy
...(4) is not reasonably opposed by any other Supporting Organization."
Article III, Section 2(e)).

So to create a ccSO would be to give the ccTLD registries veto power over
DNSO proposals that they "reasonably opposed."

A growing number of ccTLDs count themselves as competitors to gTLDs, and
this veto power potentially could be used for anti-competitive purposes.

* Another obvious question about any new SO is where do the new Board seats
come from? 

At present, there's a balance between the At Large representatives (even
though four remain non-elected), and the SO representatives. This is a
balance that's important to retain, at least through the end of the ALSC
process. 

If a ccSO proposal is accepted, one reasonable proposal might be to give
each of the four SOs *two* Boards seats, with one Board seat elected by the
councils of *all four* SOs.

* Finally, it's not clear what issues the ccTLDs have with their current
relationship with ICANN and the DNSO that are made better by the creation of
a separate constituency and guaranteed seats on the Board. The current
contract negotiations with ccTLDs, for example, will be handled by Staff as
"implementation issues" under existing policy. So guaranteed *Board seats*
don't solve any immediate ccTLD issues. While the budget has an obvious
impact on the ccTLDs, they appear to be adequately represented on ICANN's
budget committee.

If the proposed move is primarily due to the concern of "taxation without
representation," then the same case could be made for the gTLDs and the
Registrars, depending on future DNSO election outcomes. In fact, the
registrant community itself, which pays service fees to the registries and
registrars also could reasonably claim that it supports ICANN financially
too, albeit indirectly. How far will ICANN allow the creation of new SOs out
of existing SOs go?

Speaking as someone who participated in the DNSO's creation and who has
followed it closely since that time, I'm also not aware of any significant
ccTLD initiatives that were presented to the Names Council and the larger
DNSO community and which were voted down or otherwise rebuffed. While many
issues occupying the DNSO's agenda are focused on non-ccTLD issues, this
doesn't mean that ccTLD issues are or will be ignored.

If there have been problems having ccTLD issues addressed within the current
structure, I'd be interesting in hearing more details.

This is obviously an issue that warrants significant discussion, and I look
forward to seeing some of these questions addressed.

    -- Bret

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

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

Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 02:26:02 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Questions about the ccSO Proposal

Bret and all assembly members,

  Pardon me, but I only see TWO questions here, along with several
suggestions and background statements.  No offense meant in my
response here, but I thought it was worth point out clearly.
(More below Bretts background suggestions, comments
and observations).

Bret Fausett wrote:

> After reading the ccTLD communique and hearing more about the proposal over
> the remote participation feed, I have a few thoughts and questions.
>
> * The current DNSO is reasonably balanced between "suppliers" of DNS
> services (gTLD registries, ccTLD registries, Registrars, and ISPs) and
> "consumers" of DNS services (B&C, NCDNHC, IPC, and perhaps one day,
> Individuals).

  Well because there is not viable representation of individuals or REAL
stakeholders, I can't see how the DNSO is well balanced as you seem to
Brett.  As has been pointed out on a number of occasions on this forum,
individual stakeholders represent more than 80% of the Domain Name
holders/owners.  And therefore it seems reasonable to conclude,
that individual stakeholders are grossly underrepresented.  There
is not reasonable reason why such a situation should exist and never
has been...

> It's not clear from the ccTLD proposal whether a proposed ccSO
> would have any representation for the "consumer" side interests now
> represented within the DNSO.

Again, what "Consumer" representation are you referring to?

>
>
> Registrants, of course, have the same interests in the policies of the
> ccTLDs as they do with gTLDs. These interests include domain name rights,
> intellectual property rights, access to market issues, and whois access and
> data privacy concerns.

  Very much agreed.  Hence the need to the opening up of the DNSO GA
and greater representation on the ICANN BoD and the NC that is
proportional to the roughly +80% of the domain names currently held.

> A reasonable ccSO structure would ensure that ccSO
> consensus policies were not simply the consensus of the TLD managers, but a
> consensus of the larger community having reasonable interests in the ccTLDs,
> including the "consumer" interests now present in the DNSO.

  This would seem reasonable, yes...  BUt I don't see how the current
ICANN BoD with possibly two exceptions, could require such from
any potential ccSO as the @large is yet to be adequately formed,
and who's budget has been cut to US $-0- for new elections...

>
>
> Depending on the issue, a "consensus policy" coming from a group of
> like-minded ccTLD managers would not really be a consensus of the impacted
> community, as ccTLD policies affect a wider group than the companies who
> manage the ccTLD registries. Building a new structure for representation of
> other stakeholders within the ccSO, however, might well prove redundant to
> the existing facilities within the DNSO.

  Agreed.

>
>
> The ccTLD communique indicates that it has begun an outreach effort to some
> of the existing DNSO constituencies, for which the ccTLDs should be
> commended. Those discussions need to continue, and I'll be interested to
> hear how the ccTLDs propose to address this representation/consensus issue.
>
> * Under the current ICANN bylaws, each Supporting Organization effectively
> has "veto power" over policy initiatives originating within other Supporting
> Organizations. ("...the Board shall accept the recommendations of a
> Supporting Organization if the Board finds that the recommended policy
> ...(4) is not reasonably opposed by any other Supporting Organization."
> Article III, Section 2(e)).

  Yes, this is a huge flaw in the ICANN bylaws that has been discussed
and debated on a number of occasions.  Yet the ICANN BoD has either
decided to ignore subsequent suggestions to repeal this article or otherwise
modify it adequately...

>
>
> So to create a ccSO would be to give the ccTLD registries veto power over
> DNSO proposals that they "reasonably opposed."
>
> A growing number of ccTLDs count themselves as competitors to gTLDs, and
> this veto power potentially could be used for anti-competitive purposes.

  It could and likely would on occasion.  That's how the free market place
currently works in a modern world.

>
>
> * Another obvious question about any new SO is where do the new Board seats
> come from?
>
> At present, there's a balance between the At Large representatives (even
> though four remain non-elected), and the SO representatives. This is a
> balance that's important to retain, at least through the end of the ALSC
> process.

  Agreed.  Nice of you to answer your own question for the BoD members
here Brett!  >;)

>
>
> If a ccSO proposal is accepted, one reasonable proposal might be to give
> each of the four SOs *two* Boards seats, with one Board seat elected by the
> councils of *all four* SOs.

  This suggestion would seem to require that the total number of BOD seats
be expanded in order to have the proper "Balance", which of course does
not exist now....

>
>
> * Finally, it's not clear what issues the ccTLDs have with their current
> relationship with ICANN and the DNSO that are made better by the creation of
> a separate constituency and guaranteed seats on the Board. The current
> contract negotiations with ccTLDs, for example, will be handled by Staff as
> "implementation issues" under existing policy. So guaranteed *Board seats*
> don't solve any immediate ccTLD issues. While the budget has an obvious
> impact on the ccTLDs, they appear to be adequately represented on ICANN's
> budget committee.

  In that the ICANN BoD has dictated that the ccTLD's should provide for
a full 1/3 of ICANN seemingly our of control expanding budget, I can
well understand why the ccTLD community wish to have seats on the board
that is commensurate with that budget requirement....

>
>
> If the proposed move is primarily due to the concern of "taxation without
> representation," then the same case could be made for the gTLDs and the
> Registrars, depending on future DNSO election outcomes. In fact, the
> registrant community itself, which pays service fees to the registries and
> registrars also could reasonably claim that it supports ICANN financially
> too, albeit indirectly. How far will ICANN allow the creation of new SOs out
> of existing SOs go?

  Good question.  And how far does the ever out of control expanding
ICANN BoD budget go?

>
>
> Speaking as someone who participated in the DNSO's creation and who has
> followed it closely since that time, I'm also not aware of any significant
> ccTLD initiatives that were presented to the Names Council and the larger
> DNSO community and which were voted down or otherwise rebuffed. While many
> issues occupying the DNSO's agenda are focused on non-ccTLD issues, this
> doesn't mean that ccTLD issues are or will be ignored.
>
> If there have been problems having ccTLD issues addressed within the current
> structure, I'd be interesting in hearing more details.
>
> This is obviously an issue that warrants significant discussion, and I look
> forward to seeing some of these questions addressed.
>
>     -- Bret
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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 #511
************************