Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #513
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, June 5 2001            Volume 01 : Number 513

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

Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 18:29:36 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to establish a GA-ORG mailing list

Seconded. Will this be acknowledged this time?
Jefsey

On 10:01 04/06/01, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
>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

- --
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 22:50:24 +0200
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Stockholm Meetings Complete, Archive Now Available

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 1:42 PM
To: ICANN Stockholm Registrants and Remote Participants
Subject: UPDATE: ICANN-Stockholm Meetings Complete, Archive Now Available

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because you attended or registered to attend
ICANN's public meetings in Stockholm, Sweden (June 1-4) in person or via
webcast.

Today's ICANN Board Meeting is now complete, and archives of this session,
yesterday's Public Forum, and Saturday's DNSO meetings have been posted in
the online meeting archive at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive>.  Archives include
agendas, RealVideo recordings, scribe's notes, documents and presentations
discussed, real-time questions received, and online discussion logs.

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.

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 15:45:57 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter 

On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:01:55 -0700, Derek wrote:

>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 ASO and PSO do not have constituencies so why should the ccSO?

Nevertheless this is an interesting point.  Should the ccTLD
registries be the *only* component of a ccTLD SO?

This is worth considering before we get too far down the track.

>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.

I think you will find those 31 ccTLDs though comprise over 95% of
ccTLD domain names and probably 99% of ICANN funding through ccTLDs.

>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.

On the contrary they have regional grouping, an international
executive cmte and a secretariat.  They seem better organised than
even the DNSO arguably.

>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.

I think people miss the fundamental point that ICANN needs the ccTLDs
far far more than they need ICANN.  If the ccTLDs don't get better
representation than 1/7th of 1/3rd of half the Board then they will
take their ball and play elsewhere.

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: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 17:15:33 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO GA Chair Danny Younger

At 22:32 3/06/01 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>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.

Thanks for the "me too" , Roberto.
Danny needs all the encouragement we can give him.

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz

- --
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 17:52:11 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [I CAN][PUBLIC-PRIVATE]Open Mic

At 17:40 3/06/01 -0400, vint cerf wrote:
>Sotiris,
>
>I will by happy to read this question in the public forum tomorrow.

Vint,

I very much appreciate the very fact that you post in this Assembly.
While you are at it, :-)  ,
I posted the following on-line question twice, but was perhaps a bit late 
in the comments period. I am not blaming anyone here.
I will post it for a third time today, but I would appreciate it not only 
it will be read out, but also answered.

Joop Teernstra (IDNO)
DNSO constituencies

In Berlin , the ICANN Board refused to consider the petition that was 
presented for the creation of an Individual Domain Name Holders' constituency.
In Santiago and Yokohama, again, it chose to defer the question.
As a result, this constituency in-spe never got to hear what requirements 
would need to be fulfilled for the Board to approve it.

Further self-organizing needs to take place.
Much has taken place already.
Now at this point, to progress any further, prospective organizers and 
members want to know if they are not wasting their time.

Can the Board recognize an Individuals Constituency IN PRINCIPLE this time 
around?

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz

- --
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 23:52:35 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Meeting in Stockholm - no webcast or remote participation

At 02:45 2/06/01 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm

The webcast is there, but I cannot find any link to the IRC  channel that 
we used to have.
A specific question about it to Ben Edelman was met with a non answer 
referring me to the above URL.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
[email-masked]
http://www.imachination.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 18:23:44 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "TAKING IT OFFLINE" (Scenes from ICANN Stockholm)

"TAKING IT OFFLINE" (Scenes from ICANN meeting in Stockholm), now posted at
http://www.internetstakeholders.com.

This article features selected extracts from conversations with KARL
AUERBACH, ICANN Director, that give a fresh insight to the weekend's events.
Transcribed by KENDALL DAWSON.

Regards,
Joanna Lane

- --
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 13:14:12 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "TAKING IT OFFLINE" (Scenes from Stockholm)

Article: "TAKING IT OFFLINE" (Scenes from Stockholm)

http://www.internetstakeholders.com

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 05:53:25 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Perspective

At 12:41 3/06/01 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
>on 6/3/01 11:28 AM, Eric Dierker at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Of course Mr. Younger did a great job, that is what we pay him the big
> > bucks for isn't it?
>
>
>Danny Younger is not a wealthy person, has a young family and can ill afford
>these trips out of his own pocket. I think we should at least invite him to
>submit his account of ICANN related expenses over the past week, discuss the
>issue and solicit contributions towards reimbursement.

I thought that is what Eric was driving at.
Funding is a critical issue.
Apart from individual help by members here, I find it a crying shame that 
the Markle Foundation, (through Salzburg Seminar)  that boasts to be 
funding the ICANN travel for the sake of democratic representation, closes 
its eyes when there is genuine and obvious need to help promoting democracy.
Instead it sticks to its rules that only members of organizations that 
belong to the NCDNHC are eligible for funding.

- --
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 18:37:54 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO GA Chair Danny Younger

At 02:09 3/06/01 -0700, 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.

It's the mailing list "chairing" that is the most difficult job for a GA chair.
Our chairs (both of them) deserve that we all bend over backwards to make 
their burdens a little lighter and refrain from the chair bashing game.

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz

- --
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 17:37:50 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] With all due respect Mr. Froomkin

At 00:20 3/06/01 -0700, Derek Conant wrote:

>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

Do you have a slightly more precise membership number , Derek?

>which contributes to the DNSGA's immaturity. The DNSGA is
>also accepting applications from interested parties for key positions
>within the DNSGA.

Ah, this is the more difficult part. Developing an accepted and competent 
leadership.
Do you have a list of names that you, or a close associate, would be 
able  to nominate?
Self-nomination generally results in  the least wanted "leaders".

Gaining credibility is a long and hard road, without shortcuts.

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz

- --
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 17:23:12 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-ROOTS - Denial, Dismissal and Dogma.

At 12:33 3/06/01 +1000, Alternate Chair wrote:

>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 !!

The ancient IFWP (Internet Forum on the White Paper) list has just been 
resurrected.
Now the internic DP list has shut down, the most suitable neutral gathering 
place on the net on DNS and ICANN matters.
for subscription try [email-masked]
post at [email-masked]

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz

- --
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 17:06:24 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: [ga-roots] Two standards

On 14:52 2/06/01 -0700, William X. Walsh said:
>Hello Eric,
>
>Saturday, June 02, 2001, 1:30:08 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Those of us here at dotVN
>
>What position do you hold with the .vn TLD, Eric?

Possibly a less exalted position than you once held with .tj

- --
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 16:24:20 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter

Hello DPF,

Sunday, June 03, 2001, 8:45:57 PM, DPF wrote:
> I think people miss the fundamental point that ICANN needs the ccTLDs
> far far more than they need ICANN.  If the ccTLDs don't get better
> representation than 1/7th of 1/3rd of half the Board then they will
> take their ball and play elsewhere.

There is no other place to play.

There is some misunderstanding that some people believe that a ccTLD
can remove itself from ICANN if it becomes dissatisfied with it.

That really is not an option.   Even if a ccTLD embraced alt.roots, it
would not really have any effect other than as PR for the alt.roots.

It would not result in the ccTLD not resolving in ICANN roots, nor
would it broaden the resolution of alt.roots.

ccTLD registries do not control name resolution inside their
countries, which is apparently what some people who think this is some
"coup" option seem to believe.

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 11:58:24 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter

On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:24:20 -0700, you wrote:

>Hello DPF,
>
>Sunday, June 03, 2001, 8:45:57 PM, DPF wrote:
>> I think people miss the fundamental point that ICANN needs the ccTLDs
>> far far more than they need ICANN.  If the ccTLDs don't get better
>> representation than 1/7th of 1/3rd of half the Board then they will
>> take their ball and play elsewhere.
>
>There is no other place to play.

There is.

>There is some misunderstanding that some people believe that a ccTLD
>can remove itself from ICANN if it becomes dissatisfied with it.
>
>That really is not an option.   Even if a ccTLD embraced alt.roots, it
>would not really have any effect other than as PR for the alt.roots.
>
>It would not result in the ccTLD not resolving in ICANN roots, nor
>would it broaden the resolution of alt.roots.
>
>ccTLD registries do not control name resolution inside their
>countries, which is apparently what some people who think this is some
>"coup" option seem to believe.

No-one is suggesting this.  The option open to the ccTLDs is quite
simply to set up their own version of IANA which will handle all
contact details and zone files for the ccTLDs at probably 1/10th the
price incidentally.  They would work out their own redelegation
procedures.

Such an organisation would simply tell ICANN/DOC that for any ccTLD
they should point Root Server A to the wwTLD Root Server.  ICANN would
have absolutely no choice at all.  They have no power to set up
alternative registries in each ccTLD, especially if all the local ISPs
support the current registry.

If ICANN even tried to point to a different place then what the ccTLDs
wanted then Root Server A would find itself non authoritative damn
quickly.

Note I do not recommend this path of action.  But it is definitely
feasible and unless ICANN can persuade ccTLDs of the merits of paying
ICANN $1.4 million and more importantly be reassured that ICANN is not
going to try and impose global policies on them, it will become more
likely.

Most ccTLDs (OECD ones anyway) are supported by their Government and
local communities and if domain names in that country stopped
resolving because of ICANN feuding with the local ccTLD, there would
be phone calls to the WhiteHouse damn quick and DOC not ICANN control
Root Server A.

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 01:34:05 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] the NC takes the next step

The Names Council just decided to form a task force to create an RFP for an 
Individuals' Constituency and to invite the GA Chair or an elected member 
of the GA to be part of this task force.

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz

- --
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 19:24:22 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "TAKING IT OFFLINE" (Scenes from Stockholm)

Joanna and all assembly members,

  Sorry to say this, but your site seems mostly like a "Self Promotion
Site"...

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Article: "TAKING IT OFFLINE" (Scenes from Stockholm)
>
> http://www.internetstakeholders.com
>
> 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

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: 4 Jun 2001 18:23:43 -0700
From: Srikanth Narra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Register abuses.

I am currently handicaped with limited connectivity. 

But for those participating - pls. if you can - raise the topic of business partices of approved registers at appropriate time and forum.

So far come across..registers - 

1. Holding up and cancelling transfer request despite explicit instructions because of not responding to counter offer in time.

2. Holding up or delaying transfers of domain names coming close to expiry dates (in hopes of domain name holder panicing and renewing with existing register ?).

3. Continueing to send renewal notices for domain names already transfered to other registers (in hopes of capitalizing on confusion ?)

4. Any possible black list of domain name holders to harress. 

We have platform for trademark holders to harress and exploit domain name holders. We have platform for everyone else..

For once can we have one single platform where domain name holder can get a refuge about atleast one single issue. 

Can we have a forum (like UDRP) where domain name holders can air and get redressal for their grivences against registers ? Now that's completely ICANN domain is it not ? After all they "approved" them ? 

If not for domain name holders, perhaps ICANN can impose fines against abusing registers - an extra source of income ?

Sri

- --
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, 05 Jun 2001 12:59:52 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] the NC takes the next step

On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:34:05 +1200, you wrote:

>The Names Council just decided to form a task force to create an RFP for an 
>Individuals' Constituency and to invite the GA Chair or an elected member 
>of the GA to be part of this task force.

Excellent news.

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: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 20:08:45 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter

Hello DPF,

Monday, June 04, 2001, 4:58:24 PM, DPF wrote:
> Note I do not recommend this path of action.  But it is definitely
> feasible

Remote possibility maybe.  But not really something that any ccTLD
would seriously consider doing.

> Most ccTLDs (OECD ones anyway) are supported by their Government and
> local communities and if domain names in that country stopped
> resolving because of ICANN feuding with the local ccTLD, there would
> be phone calls to the WhiteHouse damn quick and DOC not ICANN control
> Root Server A.

You seem to think the backlash would be against ICANN/USG.

By and large, even in the EU, the governments supported the creation
of ICANN, and have been participating in the GAC.

With ICANN they got almost cart blanche authority over the ccTLDs,
something they didn't have pre-ICANN, and most certainly would not
have if the ccTLDs went their own way, since all but a small handful
of the ccTLDs (who were already in co-operative agreements with their
government, such as .dk) opposed this change in policy from the
original RFC1591 text and policy.

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 00:22:57 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Splinter groups

In my opinion, the best mechanism for advancing the development of
policy and standards is one that includes many splinter groups.
Splinter groups, may provide the best mechanism for managing the large
quantity of comments, opinions and information contributed by
individuals and organizations willing to participate in advancing the
development of policy and standards.  How else is ICANN and its SO later
going to manage large quantities of comments, opinions and information
contributed by individuals and organizations willing to participate?

An organization or group with its own constituencies and consensus is
able to assist in the management of information and expedite the process
of developing and contributing constructive consolidated opinion derived
from its constituency to the decision making body (ICANN and its SOs).
This also allows the freedom for interested parties to flow from one
organization or group to the next which may sustain one's momentum and
interest to participate in these processes.

A splinter group that is not productive, or one that does not produce
constructive results, simply will not have a significant impact on the
topics or matters at issue.

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: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 13:02:44 +0800
From: Jim Ayson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter

At 11:58 AM 6/5/01 +1200, DPF wrote:

> >ccTLD registries do not control name resolution inside their
> >countries, which is apparently what some people who think this is some
> >"coup" option seem to believe.
>
>No-one is suggesting this.  The option open to the ccTLDs is quite
>simply to set up their own version of IANA which will handle all
>contact details and zone files for the ccTLDs at probably 1/10th the
>price incidentally.  They would work out their own redelegation
>procedures.

Would the Internet communities in the various countries have any say about 
this? Or will the ccTLD managers just forge ahead?

>Most ccTLDs (OECD ones anyway) are supported by their Government and
>local communities and if domain names in that country stopped

Many, but not all. There are many ccTLDs that are operating independently 
of government support.

- --------------------------------
jim ayson / [email-masked]

- --
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 23:17:09 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter

WXW and all assembly members,

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello DPF,
>
> Sunday, June 03, 2001, 8:45:57 PM, DPF wrote:
> > I think people miss the fundamental point that ICANN needs the ccTLDs
> > far far more than they need ICANN.  If the ccTLDs don't get better
> > representation than 1/7th of 1/3rd of half the Board then they will
> > take their ball and play elsewhere.
>
> There is no other place to play.

  Oh?  How not so?

>
>
> There is some misunderstanding that some people believe that a ccTLD
> can remove itself from ICANN if it becomes dissatisfied with it.

  And when were the ccTLD's part of ICANN.  In fact the reality is the
other way around...  ccTLD's determination is up the the respective
countries in which those ccTLD's belong to....

>
>
> That really is not an option.   Even if a ccTLD embraced alt.roots, it
> would not really have any effect other than as PR for the alt.roots.

ccTLD's can be inclusive or other root and registry structures should they
so choose at any time of each of their choosing...  Pretty simple to
effect really.

>
>
> It would not result in the ccTLD not resolving in ICANN roots, nor
> would it broaden the resolution of alt.roots.

  Oh?  how so?  Please be specific...

>
>
> ccTLD registries do not control name resolution inside their
> countries, which is apparently what some people who think this is some
> "coup" option seem to believe.

  True in most cases ti is true, but not all.  However with very little
restructuring and name server redirection/relocation, they could easily
do so.

>
>
> --
> 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

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 23:28:00 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Opinion Concerning ICANN Board/ccSO Matter

WXW and all assembly members,

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello DPF,
>
> Monday, June 04, 2001, 4:58:24 PM, DPF wrote:
> > Note I do not recommend this path of action.  But it is definitely
> > feasible
>
> Remote possibility maybe.  But not really something that any ccTLD
> would seriously consider doing.

  Oh?  How so?  From some that I have heard form it is a definite
possibility.

>
>
> > Most ccTLDs (OECD ones anyway) are supported by their Government and
> > local communities and if domain names in that country stopped
> > resolving because of ICANN feuding with the local ccTLD, there would
> > be phone calls to the WhiteHouse damn quick and DOC not ICANN control
> > Root Server A.
>
> You seem to think the backlash would be against ICANN/USG.
>
> By and large, even in the EU, the governments supported the creation
> of ICANN, and have been participating in the GAC.

  Yes.  And recently many of them have become fed up with GAC
and ICANN...

>
>
> With ICANN they got almost cart blanche authority over the ccTLDs,
> something they didn't have pre-ICANN, and most certainly would not
> have if the ccTLDs went their own way, since all but a small handful
> of the ccTLDs (who were already in co-operative agreements with their
> government, such as .dk) opposed this change in policy from the
> original RFC1591 text and policy.
>
> --
> 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

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 #513
************************