Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #512
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Monday, June 4 2001             Volume 01 : Number 512

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

Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 17:51:56 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Country code chiefs go nuclear on ICANN

At 09:10 03.06.2001 -0500, JIM FLEMING wrote:
>Do ICANN and the IETF censor the .BEATLES also ?
>
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg11224.html
>http://beatles.cselt.it/cgi-bin/ietf_censored-filters

No, Mau (an individual with no particular role in the IETF) has personally 
decided not to listen to your messages to the IETF list.
I trust his judgment.

(truth in advertising: it used to be that I had chosen not to listen, and 
he trusted my judgment. We swapped.)

- --
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 08:24:31 +0200
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: REMINDER: ICANN-Stockholm Board Meeting Webcast About to Begin

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 8:24 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: REMINDER: ICANN-Stockholm Board Meeting Webcast About to Begin

Just a quick reminder that today's ICANN meetings are about to begin.
Meetings will begin with a continuation of yesterday's Public Forum,
including a presentation from the At Large Study Committee and an Open Mic
period.  The meeting of the ICANN Board, open to public observation, will
take place immediately thereafter.

(The sessions start at 8:30AM local time -- which is 2:30AM US Eastern time,
6:30AM UTC.)

Join the webcast via <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm>.  Full
archives will be posted at the conclusion of the meeting.

For more information about the meetings, see
<http://www.icann.org/stockholm>.

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

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

Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:01:24 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Motion to establish a GA-ORG mailing list

Considering that:

1) The GA has (by example) established its ability to create mailing lists 
for specific topics with a minimum of fuss
2) The Board has adopted a motion to refer to the Names Council a request 
to consider how policies for .ORG should be handled
[http://www.icann.org/stockholm/org-topic.htm]
3) This process will need an open forum for discussion, independent of the 
Names Council - established working group or whatever that will be established,

I move that the Chair request from the Secretariat that a new mailing list 
be established with the name of GA-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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 22:30:49 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] With all due respect Mr. Froomkin

Alternate Chair wrote:

> 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.

Pretty good, Patrick! As a trademark attorney, I wondered about that myself.
What is the likelihood of confusion? Was the choice of name "deliberate and
calculated?"  Is clear glass transparent?

(But Patrick, now.  I detect a smidgeon of sarcasm in your text -- something
that I, of course, would never do. :-)   )

Bill Lovell

- --
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 22:19:46 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: UPDATE: Open Mic Period Rescheduled to 6/4/01 9AM

Should be 04/06/01, 04-06-01 or 04.06.01 = da/mo/yr instead of
the U.S. mo/da/yr.

Bill Lovell

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> 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

- --
         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" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:37:30 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to establish a GA-ORG mailing list

On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, at 10:01 [=GMT+0200], Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> Considering that:
> 
> 1) The GA has (by example) established its ability to create mailing lists 
> for specific topics with a minimum of fuss
> 2) The Board has adopted a motion to refer to the Names Council a request 
> to consider how policies for .ORG should be handled
> [http://www.icann.org/stockholm/org-topic.htm]
> 3) This process will need an open forum for discussion, independent of the 
> Names Council - established working group or whatever that will be established,
> 
> I move that the Chair request from the Secretariat that a new mailing list 
> be established with the name of GA-ORG.

I second this motion.

Marc Schneiders

- --
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 00:13:04 -0400
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter

Derek,

thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts in this way.

I have copied the ICANN board for their information. Plainly no
specific actions can or should be taken until the board is presented
with a proposal from the ccTLD constituency and there will surely
be discussion among the board members and consultation with other
constituents as to the advisability and consequences of any
restructuring. A similar discussion will be associated with the
at-large study committee's findings and recommendations.

Vint Cerf

At 11:01 PM 6/3/2001 -0700, Derek Conant wrote:
>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: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 04:59:38 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to establish a GA-ORG mailing list

Harald and all assembly members,

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> Considering that:
>
> 1) The GA has (by example) established its ability to create mailing lists
> for specific topics with a minimum of fuss
> 2) The Board has adopted a motion to refer to the Names Council a request
> to consider how policies for .ORG should be handled
> [http://www.icann.org/stockholm/org-topic.htm]

  Here is the most concerning part from the URL above:
"(e) policies for the entity's operation of the .org top-level domain (to the
extent they are not to be established by the entity)."

  As some may recall, this indicates what we [INEGroup] predicted would
come to the fore front as the main reason for the spinning off of the .ORG
gTLD on the NCDNHC mailing list as well as this forum....

>
> 3) This process will need an open forum for discussion, independent of the
> Names Council - established working group or whatever that will be established,
>
> I move that the Chair request from the Secretariat that a new mailing list
> be established with the name of GA-ORG.

  This is a good idea.  However it is most likely already decided as to
what the future of .ORG is or will be....

>
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 12:54:41 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Roberto: please let us seriously work together and stop psalming

Dear Roberto,

On 01:44 04/06/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
>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?

The alt-root gang is a fancy of yours. There is a real world with various 
positions and understandings. I known what Pacific Root, what ORSC root is, 
what IRON, what CINICS are, etc... but I do not know any "alt.root", the 
word "alternative" being a word I personally find hurting unless applied to 
every one. There are - as everywhere - alternative commercial propositions: 
this is life and competition. By historical order - I am in this for 30 
years now - the iCANN proposition is one of the latest alternative 
proposed. And one of the most exclusive ones.

The inclusive, open, etc..., any word you want to give it, is the result of 
a technical logical analysis open to all and you are more than welcome to 
share. Simon Higgs produced an IETF document of quality I object on some 
points as unclear to me and not systematic enough IMHO. Instead of psalming 
the same irrelevant things, why not to work seriously on the matter. Your 
comments and experience would be quite appreciated. Otherwise once the DNS 
Name Space theory and consequent management rules have taken full shape, do 
not come and say one did not take your point of view into consideration.

I certainly accept that Danny's denial of a serious dialog on the matter 
does not help: may I recall you that I documented many reasons - and not 
only the so called alt.root which are actually external to the iCANN - for 
the GA to work through a dedicated ML on a document proposing the NC the 
creation of a formal WG on the Inclusive Name Space Management. Would we 
have followed that method we would not have today the opposition between 
CEO and NC, we would have clarified many issues and saved a lot of time in 
Stockholm due to the still ill understood the similarities of the .biz, 
New.net, IDN, ccTLDs questions. They all belong to a missing consistent 
technical, legal, political, commercial Name Space strategy by the iCANN.

 From then on, let propose a reshape of the RFC 1591 taking also into 
account the IP addressing plan - as any discussion concerning the Name 
Space level not taking into account the underlying Address level is of no 
interest. And let us know/maybe help where the world goes.

Please document your technical objections. My pleasure to copy you my mail 
to Simon Higgs if you wish. Let become serious about this issue.

Jefsey

PS. world@wide has the DN rfc1591.org. Why not to use it to host a full 
joint review with agenda, working frame and method, documented positions 
links to support discussions, etc.... and a firm initial commitment from 
anyone participating that we work ahead not dispute back and that every 
position will be respected and investigated without arrogance and with 
logic. You know far better than me about Chairing such a work: why would 
you not take it with Harald (I cannot be more open minded)?

- --
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 06:59:14 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: UPDATE: Open Mic Period Rescheduled to 6/4/01 9AM

I do business on both sides of the pond and the *only* way to avoid date
errors is to never write a date entirely in numbers unless the day falls on
or after the 13th of the month. If it does, use the alphabet for the month.
i.e: 6/31/01 or 31/6/01 is fine, but neither 6/4/01 nor 4/6/01. It must be
June 4, 01 or 4 June 01, or even 01, June 4. Anything else is open to
misunderstanding.

I spend more time than I care to admit writing notes to each side reminding
them to read the dates on accompanying documents backwards...:-)

Regards,
Joanna

on 6/4/01 1:19 AM, William S. Lovell at [email-masked] wrote:

> Should be 04/06/01, 04-06-01 or 04.06.01 = da/mo/yr instead of
> the U.S. mo/da/yr.
> 
> Bill Lovell
> 
> Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
>> 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
> 
> --
> 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" 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, 5 Jun 2001 00:22:18 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] International Dates

Hi Roberto

> When you say "6/4/01" in the subject line, you really mean "2001-06-04"

In England and Australia the date is written dd-mm-yy as in 25/05/99.  I
still find it very hard to decipher a date with low numbers like 6/4/01.  I
think it is the 6th April rather than 4th June.  Whenever I see such a date,
I need to check other dates in the set -- if there are any -- to work out
which format is being used.

Some years ago I heard that there was an International Standard that did not
use numbers at all.  The format used was that found on most date stamps
(over here at least).  That uses three letter months such as JAN, MAR and
APR.

So you would have a date like 25 MAY 99.  It was considered very good
because you did not need a hyphen as a separator - the numbers were either
side of a word.  It was even possible to squash them together (without
spaces) as 25MAY99.

I am not altogether sure how "international" this standard can be when the
names of the months are clearly in English.  In French I suppose you would
need MAI instead of MAY, for example.  With hyphens, it's the date format I
prefer when working with Microsoft Excel spreadsheet eg 25-May-99 now
25-May-1999.

Of course the numeric reverse date format 2001-05-25 is the best naming
system to use should you wish to list items in date order.  I often use that
characteristic with file naming and find it most convenient.  Either that or
forwards (as in the 25-05-2001) is more logical because the date is
ascending or descending laterally.

But you are assuming Roman notation for numerals.  You are, no doubt, aware
that many languages such as Arabic have a different script for numerals.
Which is perhaps anomalous since I understand ours is considered Arabic
notation ;-)

But I certainly thank Ben and the Berkman Centre for their help with working
out the time in Stockholm.  That's a particular difficulty as was noted in
Melbourne.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 8:24 AM
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

- --
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 10:23:15 -0400
From: "Gene Marsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter

Vint,

Perhaps I should be more clear.  I agree that the Bylaws allow for the
creation of additional SO's.  By the wording of the Bylaws, there appears to
be only one *process* defined that would initiate the consideration of
another SO, namely a Staff Recommendation.  The Bylaws state:

"(b) The Board may amend the Bylaws to create additional Supporting
Organizations if it determines, by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members of
the Board, that it would serve the purposes of the Corporation. In the event
of a staff recommendation that an additional Supporting Organization should
be created, the Board will post the staff recommendation on the Web Site,
including a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or
desirable, set a reasonable time for the receipt of public comments, and not
make a final decision to seek the consensus development of such additional
Supporting Organization until it has taken into account all such comments."

All other considerations rely upon a vote of the board.  However, there is
no clear process as to how that consideration by the Board may be reached.
Is there a method by which the Board would be enacted to review such a
consideration?  Petition?  Formal letter? etc.?

Gene...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: vint cerf [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 9:46 AM
> To: Gene Marsh; Derek Conant; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter
>
>
> There is a process for SO creation and it is found in the ByLaws
> (section 3 in Article VI Supporting Organizations).
>
> there should be a copy of the bylaws on the www.icann.org
> website. New constituencies in the DNSO can be initiated by  by
> petition or by board-initiated action (see Article VI-B, section 3(d)).
>
> vint
>
>
>
>
>  At 09:09 AM 6/4/2001 -0400, Gene Marsh wrote:
> >Vint,
> >
> >Is there a defined (formal or informal) process for the
> creation/acceptance
> >of an SO?  I was of the impression that there was no such
> defined process,
> >even for the creation of a new constituency within an existing SO.
> >
> >If the currently accepted model allows for consideration by petition or
> >formal recommendation, even that would be good information to have.
> >
> >Could you please clarify?
> >
> >Gene...
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> vint cerf
> >> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:13 AM
> >> To: Derek Conant; [email-masked]
> >> Cc: [email-masked]
> >> Subject: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter
> >>
> >>
> >> Derek,
> >>
> >> thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts in this way.
> >>
> >> I have copied the ICANN board for their information. Plainly no
> >> specific actions can or should be taken until the board is presented
> >> with a proposal from the ccTLD constituency and there will surely
> >> be discussion among the board members and consultation with other
> >> constituents as to the advisability and consequences of any
> >> restructuring. A similar discussion will be associated with the
> >> at-large study committee's findings and recommendations.
> >>
> >> Vint Cerf
> >>
> >> At 11:01 PM 6/3/2001 -0700, Derek Conant wrote:
> >> >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
> >>
>

- --
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 09:09:10 -0400
From: "Gene Marsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter

Vint,

Is there a defined (formal or informal) process for the creation/acceptance
of an SO?  I was of the impression that there was no such defined process,
even for the creation of a new constituency within an existing SO.

If the currently accepted model allows for consideration by petition or
formal recommendation, even that would be good information to have.

Could you please clarify?

Gene...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of vint cerf
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:13 AM
> To: Derek Conant; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Re: Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter
>
>
> Derek,
>
> thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts in this way.
>
> I have copied the ICANN board for their information. Plainly no
> specific actions can or should be taken until the board is presented
> with a proposal from the ccTLD constituency and there will surely
> be discussion among the board members and consultation with other
> constituents as to the advisability and consequences of any
> restructuring. A similar discussion will be associated with the
> at-large study committee's findings and recommendations.
>
> Vint Cerf
>
> At 11:01 PM 6/3/2001 -0700, Derek Conant wrote:
> >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
>

- --
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 #512
************************