Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #518
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Friday, June 8 2001             Volume 01 : Number 518

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

Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 07:49:25 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Acronyms, Guides & Directories

Thank you Patrick,

This is a great list. You know that we should place this somewhere for easy
reference.  This is very important work for the GA.

Sincerely,
Eric

I did not repost it all.

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi William & All
>
> This might help a little.  There is also an "Acronym Finder".
> Please could anyone advise any errors or omissions.
> I have included some references to IPv4, IPv6 etc.

- --
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: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 11:49:10 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Approved Proposal Organization (APO)

Wait a minute.  Remember the part in the proposal or model that states as
follows:

"ICANN Board Members and ICANN SO representatives would eventually be elected by
the APOs. There may be hundreds of APOs and many ICANN SOs structurally placed
to manage APO proposals."

There is no qualifying participants in the model proposed.  Participants would
choose an APO from a list of ICANN Approved Proposal Organizations.  The ICANN
Supporting Organizations would review and qualify the APO applications and
forward their recommendations to the ICANN Board for final review and approval.

In this model, ICANN Board Members and ICANN SO representatives can be held
accountable and so it is reasonable to conclude that they will make the best
decisions possible with the information proposed to them.

An APO's member consensus would cause the APO to define criteria for review and
criteria regarding how to reach conclusions to that review.  It may be the case
that APOs have their own agenda and work at developing consensus for that,
however, if the APO's members do like the criteria for review and results
therefrom, then the members will probably lose interest in that APO making the
APO non-effective at presenting its proposals to ICANN Supporting Organizations.

An interested party would choose an APO from an ICANN list of qualified APOs.
Much like the ICANN Accredited Registrar list, there would be an ICANN Approved
Proposal Organization list, so that any interested party could choose APOs that
fit her/his interest and level.  This is the APO competition mechanism I
described allowing APO's to compete for participants, members, and information
for developing or furthering an APO's agenda and position concerning the
Internet.  This also demands that APO's fund the advancement of its positions so
that the finished position or product is comprehensive and effective in its
presentation, thus saving the ICANN Supporting Organizations and the ICANN Board
time on their review.  This will streamline the review process with valid and
verifiable information while generating more participation in the process.

Your help is appreciated and I invite constructive criticism from any interested
party to determine if the model proposed is viable.  I believe that this is
Mankind's opportunity to develop a revolutionary International governance system
compatible with all interests.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Eric and all assembly members,
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Mr. Conant,
> >
> > Your idea here sounds very nice indeed*** Until you get to the point of
> > qualifying participants.  So the republicans pass a law that says only
> > knowledgeable people can vote, and they will decide who is
> > knowledgeable???  BAD IDEA!
>
>   Agreed.
>
> >
> >
> > Let us look closer to home, so the BoD passes a contract that says "APNIC
> > can only deal with ISPs that are knowledgeable in ICANN standards" then it
> > decides that any ISP that points to a root other than "a-root" cannot
> > possibly be knowledgeable.  BAD IDEA!
>
>   Agreed here as well.  And Apnic made such an announcement which I
> posted to this list as a FYI about two weeks ago.  It *WAS* on the
> Apnic web site as well as the ICANN web site until a couple of days
> ago, and now has disappeared from both.
>
> >
> >
> > No sirree I ain't biting!!!
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Eric
> >
> > Derek Conant wrote:
> >
> > > DNSGA Introduces Concept for ICANN At-Large Membership Study Committee
> > > that Suggests Restructuring of ICANN Supporting Organizations.
> > > http://dnsga.org/announcements/atlarge_5june01.html
> > >
> > > This may give the DNSO GA here a perspective on its future.
> > >
> > > Derek Conant
> > > DNSGA President and Chairman
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> 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

- --
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: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:09:08 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Dot org TLD - [email-masked] list

This [email-masked] list is set up now, in a similar way to 
other GA lists (same rules), with archives in
      http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-org/Arc00/

This list is dedicated to Policy Recommendations for Operation
of the .org TLD.

On 25 May 2001 ICANN formally entered into new agreements 
under which the Internet's .com, .net, and .org domains 
will be operated for the next several years.
The VeriSign, Inc. will give up control over the .org registry 
by the end of 2002.
For more information on the ICANN/VeriSign registry agreements, 
see <http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/>.

On 4 June 2001, in Stockholm, ICANN Board made the following
decisions:

cf. http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-04jun01.htm
...
Resolved [01.71] that the Board refers to the Names Council 
for its consideration the issues raised by the scheduled 
transition of the operation of the .org top-level domain from 
VeriSign to a new entity, including at least:

   (a) whether to select an existing entity to succeed VeriSign 
       as responsible for operation of the .org TLD, or to 
       establish a new entity;

   (b) the characteristics of the entity to be selected or established;

   (c) selection criteria for the entity or its organizers;

   (d) principles governing its relationship with ICANN 
       (sponsored or unsponsored TLD, term of operation, etc.); and

   (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).

Further resolved [01.72] that the Names Council is requested 
to provide a report on its progress on the issues referred by 
resolution 01.71, including any policy recommendations it has 
developed, no later than 12 October 2001; and

Further resolved [01.73] that the report will then be posted 
for public comment in advance of ICANN's third annual meeting 
in November 2001.
...

DNSO Secretariat
- --
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: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 09:22:44 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Acronyms, Guides & Directories

Great piece of work, Patrick! So now if I did this right,
here's a painless way to provide a helping hand to
everyone, in my sig file down below. (Anyone have any
better suggestions on what to put there, let me know.
The whole list? How long can a sig file be??)

Bill Lovell

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi William & All
>
> This might help a little.  There is also an "Acronym Finder".
> Please could anyone advise any errors or omissions.
> I have included some references to IPv4, IPv6 etc.

[snip of all the good stuff; bandwidth, you know]
- --
For any terms not defined above, they may be explained at:
ACRONYM FINDER: http://www.acronymfinder.com/;
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.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: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 12:43:56 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] the NC takes the next step

on 6/6/01 11:41 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA at [email-masked] wrote:

> 
> I'm a little anxious that we don't have our own house in order but are
> making requests from the ccTLDs.  ?

Marilyn,
The ccTLDs have changed the DNSO map. First, we need to be clear about what
impact the new SO could have on the DNSO, and that is something they will
have considered very carefully when making their decision.

As an individual, I am impacted by the withdrawal of the ccTLDs, because it
makes a nonsense for the proposed DNSO-IDNH Constituency to now represent
the interests of ccTLD registrants. If you want to talk about putting the
DNSO house in order first, that's fine, but from the registrant's
perspective, it is now only half a house.

While the ccSO may not concern you Marilyn, others need to know what, if
any, steps are going to be taken by them with respect to representation of
individual registrants within ICANN. If none, then we have a serious problem
to solve on behalf of individual ccTLD Domain Name holders that may require
direct and confidential consultations with the new ccTLDs SO, outside of
this forum.

The bottom line is that if the ccTLDs can leave DNSO and still obtain a
place at the ICANN table, so can others, and no doubt you will agree that
DNSO has a record of intransigentism when the subject of giving individuals
the vote is raised.

Regards,
Joanna

> 
> on 6/5/01 9:22 PM, Joop Teernstra at [email-masked] wrote:
> 
>> At 11:03 5/06/01 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>>> Will the ccTLDs attend?
>> 
>> Since they have decided to withdraw from the DNSO , I doubt it.
>> 
>> But if they want to become an SO in their own right, they may well decide
>> on some form of DN holder representation from within their own customer
> base.
>> 
>> It would do much for their credibility as a country-oriented "shadow
> DNSO".
>> 
> 
> The argument to that is that there is a fundamental conflict of interest for
> the ccTLDSO to represent both themselves and their client. If the ccTLDs
> represent 244 countries and each has 1 vote on an issue, how many votes do
> registrants have? The balance of power has to be created by a separate SO
> for registrants, so that the ccTLDSO vote and the RegsitrantSO is
> commensurate, one vote each. I would like to hear from the ccTLDs on this
> issue.
> 
> 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
> --
> 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: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:22:53 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Acronyms, Guides & Directories

Patrick and all,

 The only omission I can notice is http://www.whatis.com

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi William & All
>
> This might help a little.  There is also an "Acronym Finder".
> Please could anyone advise any errors or omissions.
> I have included some references to IPv4, IPv6 etc.
>
> GUIDES AND DIRECTORIES
>
> Acronym Finder        http://www.acronymfinder.com/
> Useful look up database for acronyms & abbreviations
>
> BetterWHOIS        http://www.betterwhois.com/
> Domain name lookups across all registrars' data.
>
> Dictionary            http://www.dictionary.com/
> Questions about words, grammar & language; dictionary & thesaurus.
>
> Ghostwheel            http://projects.ghostwheel.com/
> A dictionary of the English language and a jargon reference.
>
> Lexical Free Net      http://www.lexfn.com/
> Powerful "connected" thesaurus links terms together.
>
> Orchy Dictionary    http://www.orchy.com/dictionary/
> Biggest vewable dictionary.  However links don't work.
>
> Webopedia             http://www.webopedia.com/
> The only online dictionary and search engine for Internet technology.
>
> Whatis.com            http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> Definitions for thousands of the most current IT-related words
>
> CISCO SYSTEMS DOCUMENTATION
>
> Configuring the DNS Service
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/iaabu/cddm/cddm111/adguide/d
> ns.htm
>
> Internetworking Technology Overview
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ito_doc/index.htm
>
> Internetworking Terms and Acronyms from CISCO Systems
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ita/index.htm
>
> ACRONYMS & OTHER DNS LINKS
>
> ACIR    Advanced Computational Infrastructure and Research
> Division of Computer & Information Science & Engineering (see CISE)
> http://www.cise.nsf.gov/acir/
> http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/publicat/nsf0065/cise/acir.htm
>
> ACM    Association for Computing Machinery
> http://www.acm.org/
>
> ACPA    Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
> http://209.41.60.248/law/ACPA.html
> http://www.gcwf.com/articles/journal/jil_march00_1.html
>
> ADNS    AGN Domain Name Service, Inc.
> http://www.adns.net/
>
> AfterNIC    Domain Name Auctions, Research and Management
> http://www.afternic.com/
>
> ALTNIC    AlterNIC -- The Network Information Centre
> http://www.alternic.org/
>
> ANIR    Advanced Networking Infrastructure and Research
> Division of Computer & Information Science & Engineering (see CISE)
> http://www.cise.nsf.gov/anir/index.html
> http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/publicat/nsf0065/cise/anir.htm
>
> APNIC    Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
> (Regional Registry)
> http://www.apnic.net/
>
> APTLD    Asia Pacific Top Level Domain Forum
> http://www.apng.org/apcctld/
>
> ARIN    American Registry for Internet Numbers
> (Regional Registry)
> http://www.arin.net/
>
> ARPA    Advanced Research Project Agency
> http://www.dei.isep.ipp.pt/docs/arpa.html
>
> ASO    The Address Supporting Organization
> http://www.aso.icann.org/
>
> ASP    Application Service Providers Industry Consortium
> http://www.aspindustry.org/
> http://www.allaboutasp.org/
>
> Atlantic    The Atlantic Root Network, Inc.
> http://www.biztld.net/
>
> auDA    Australian Domain Administration
> http://www.auda.org.au/
>
> AUNIC    Australian Network Information Centre
> http://www.aunic.net/
>
> AURSC    Australian Root Server Confederation
> http://www.irsc.ah.net/
>
> BBN    BBN Planel (Now BBN Technologies)
> http://www.bbn.com/
> http://www.gte.com/AboutGTE/gto/bbnt/aboutus.html
>
> Berkman    Berkman Center for Internet & Society (of Harvard Law School)
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/
>
> BIND    Berkeley Internet Name Domain (or Daemon)
> http://www.nominum.com/    http://www.isc.org/
>
> BIZ    dot BIZ  (see also Atlantic Root Network, Inc.)
> http://www.biztld.net/
>
> CCR    Computer-Communications Research
> Division of Computer & Information Science & Engineering (see CISE)
> http://www.cise.nsf.gov/ccr/index.html
> http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/publicat/nsf0065/cise/ccr.htm
>
> CDT    Centre for Democracy & Technology
> http://www.cdt.org/
>
> CERT    Carnegie Mellon - CERT Co-ordination Center
> http://www.cert.org/
>
> CIPO    Canadian Intellectual Property Office
> http://cipo.gc.ca/
>
> CIRA    Canadian Internet Registration Authority
> http://www.cira.ca/
>
> CISA    Commercial Internet Strategies Australia
> http://www.cisa.net.au/index_altavista.htm
>
> CISE    Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering
> Directorate of the National Science Foundation (see NSF)
> http://www.cise.nsf.gov/
>
> CNRI    Corporation for National Research Initiatives
> http://www.cnri.reston.va.us/
>
> CORENIC    CORE -- Internet Council of Registrars
> http://corenic.org/
>
> CPSR    Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
> http://www.cpsr.org/
>
> CSIF    Civil Society Internet Forum
> http://www.civilsocietyinternetforum.org/
>
> DARPA    Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
> http://www.arpa.mil/
>
> DNH    The Domain Name Handbook
> http://www.domainhandbook.com/
>
> DNSO    Domain Name Supporting Organization
> http://www.dnso.org/
> http://www.dnso.icann.org/
>
> DNSR    DNS Root
> http://www.dns-root.org/
>
> DNSRD    Domain Name System Resources Directory
> http://www.dns.net/dnsrd/
>
> DOC    United States Department of Commerce
> http://www.doc.gov/
>
> EFF    Electronic Frontier Foundation
> http://www.eff.org/
>
> EPIC    Electronic Privacy Information Center
> http://epic.org/
>
> FCC    United States Federal Communications Commission
> http://www.fcc.gov/
>
> GAO    United States General Accounting Office - ICANN Report
> http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?accno=163837&rptno=OGC-00-33R
> http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf  (PDF Format)
>
> GAC    Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN
> http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/international/DNS/gac/index.htm
>
> GOD    dot GOD
> http://www.dot-god.com/
>
> gTLD-MoU    Generic Top Level Domain Memorandum of Understanding
> http://www.gtld-mou.org/
>
> HIT    Hobbes' Internet Timeline
> http://www.isoc.org/guest/zakon/Internet/History/HIT.html
>
> IAB    Internet Architecture Board
> http://www.iab.org/
>
> IAHC    Internet International Ad Hoc Committee
> http://www.iahc.org/index.html
>
> IANA    Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
> http://www.iana.org/
>
> ICANN    The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> http://www.icann.org/
>
> ICANN Blog          Web Log of ICANN related thoughts & events.
> http://www.lextext.com/icann/index.html
>
> ICANNWatch        ICANNWatch
> http://www.icannwatch.org/
>
> ICB    ICB Toll Free News
> http://www.icbtollfreenews.com/
>
> IDNO    The Individual Domain Name Owners Constituency
> http://www.idno.org/
>
> iDNS    Internationalized Domain Name System
> http://www.i-dns.net/
>
> IETF    The Internet Engineering Task Force
> http://www.ietf.org/
>
> ILPF    Internet Law and Policy Forum
> http://www.ilpf.org/
>
> INTA    The International Trademark Association
> http://www.inta.org/
>
> InterNIC    Internet Network Information Center
> http://www.internic.net/
>
> INWW    Internet Names Wordwide (Division of Melbourne IT)
> http://www.inww.com/
>
> IOD    Image Online Design, Inc.
> https://www.webtld.com/
>
> IOPS    Internet Operators
> http://www.iops.org/
>
> IPC    The Intellectual Property Constituency
> http://ipc.songbird.com/
>
> IPI    Internet Policy Institute
> http://www.internetpolicy.org/
>
> IPv4       Internet Protocol Verion 4 (IPv4) Address Space
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
>
> IPv6        The Next Generation Internet
> http://www.ipv6.org/
> http://www.ipv6forum.com/
> http://www.gcn.com/vol19_no24/news/2764-1.html
>
> IPv8        IPv8 (Galaxy/StarGate) Reference Guide
> http://ipv8.vrx.net/
>
> IPv16       IPv16 Explanation
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Pre_Oct_1998/msg02088.html
>
> IRSC    International Root Server Confederation
> http://www.irsc.ah.net/
>
> IRTF    Internet Research Task Force
> http://www.irtf.org/
>
> ISC    Internet Software Consortium
> http://www.isc.org/
>
> ISI    USC Information Sciences Institute
> http://www.isi.edu/
>
> ISOC    Internet Society
> http://www.isoc.org/
> http://www.isoc.org/internet-history/brief.html
>
> ISOC-AU    Internet Society of Australia
> http://www.isoc-au.org.au/
>
> ISS    Internet Security Systems
> http://www.iss.net/
>
> ITAA    Information Technology Association of America
> http://www.itaa.org/
>
> ITU    International Telecommunications Union
> http://www.itu.int/
>
> LEXTEST    Bret Fausett's Internet Printing Press
> http://www.lextext.com/index.html
>
> MIT    Melbourne IT
> http://www.melbourneit.com.au/
>
> NANOG    North American Network Operators
> http://www.ra.net/~nanog
>
> NARSC    North American Root Server Confederation
> http://narsc.lists.kz/
>
> NCDHNC    Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency
> http://www.ncdnhc.org/
>
> NCSA    National Center for Supercomputing Applications
> http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/
>
> NICUS    Official United States Domain Registry
> http://www.nic.us/
>
> NOIE    Australian National Office for the Information Economy
> http://www.noie.gov.au/
>
> NS    Name Space
> http://name-space.com/
>
> NSF    National Science Foundation
> http://www.nsf.gov/
>
> NSI    Network Solutions
> http://networksolutions.com/
>
> NTIA    National Telecommunications and Information Administration
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
>
> OpenNIC    Open Network Information Centre
> http://www.opennic.unrated.net/
>
> ORSC    Open Root Server Confederation, Inc
> http://www.open-rsc.org/
>
> OpenSRS    Open Shared Registration Service
> http://www.opensrs.com/
>
> OpenXRS    Open Extensible Registry System
> http://openxrs.tucows.com/
>
> PACROOT    The Pacific Root
> http://www.pacroot.com/
>
> PCCF    Planet Communications & Computing Facility
> http://www.pccf.net/
> http://www.pccf.net/cgi-bin/root-servers/whereis-tld?+
>
> PGP    PGP ("Pretty Good Privacy") Security
> http://www.pgp.com/
>
> PSO    Protocol Supporting Organization
> http://www.pso.icann.org/
>
> RFC    Request for Comments
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/
>
> RIPE    RIPE (Réseaux IP Européens) Network Coordination Centre
> (Regional Registry)
> http://www.ripe.net/
>
> SAIC    Science Applications International Corporation
> http://www.saic.com/
>
> SEI    Carnegie Mellon - Software Engineering Institute
> http://www.sei.cmu.edu/
>
> SEC    United States Securities and Exchange Commission
> http://www.sec.gov/
>
> SRI    SRI International (was Stanford Research Institute)
> http://www.csl.sri.com/
> http://www.csl.sri.com/history/augment.shtml
>
> SuperRoot    The SuperRoot Consortium
> http://www.superroot.org/
>
> TBTF    Tasty Bits from the Technology Front ("Roving Reporter")
> http://www.tbtf.com/roving_reporter/
>
> TINC    The Internet Namespace Cooperative
> http://www.tinc-org.com/
>
> TLD Finder    Top Level Domain Finder (see PCCF)
> http://www.pccf.net/cgi-bin/root-servers/whereis-tld?+
>
> UDRP    Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy
> http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm
>
> USPTO    United States Patent and Trademark Office
> http://www.uspto.gov/
>
> VeriSign    VeriSign, Inc.
> http://www.verisign.com/
>
> WEB    dot WEB
> https://www.webtld.com/
>
> WIPO    World Intellectual Property Organization
> http://www.wipo.org/
>
> W3C    World Wide Web Consortium
> http://www.w3.org/
>
> Thank you.
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:39:07 -0400
From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] dot org

Dear Assembly members,

We have received the following request from the Names Council Chair:
[please note that this message will also be posted to our new ga-org mailing
list] --

Danny,
will you initiate discussion on the GA on the dot org referral? We are going
to discuss process at the NC June 29 meeting. So, options from the GA for
process would be of interest for then. Please summarise GA proposals/options
and circulate to the NC in advance.
Philip

Dot org
The Board has referred this issue to the NC. The constituencies (and GA) are
asked to discuss and inform NC of their views. Timeline: First views on
substance and process to NC meeting of 29 June.

The text of the Board referral
(http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-04jun01.htm ) is:
Whereas, on 25 May 2001 ICANN entered into a new registry agreement with
VeriSign, Inc. for the .org top-level domain;
Whereas, under that agreement VeriSign's operation of the .org top-level
domain will terminate on 31 December 2002, at which time the operation will
be turned over to an entity designated by ICANN;
Whereas, before the transition to operation of the .org top-level domain by
the new entity can occur, it will be necessary to designate or establish an
appropriate entity, to fashion its legal relationship with ICANN, to develop
any necessary policies for the entity's operation, and to allow the entity
to set up its business operations;
Whereas, it is the Board's goal that these activities be completed in an
orderly manner and in time to permit transfer of operational
responsibilities for .org on the contracted schedule;
Whereas, meeting this goal will require early planning and policy
development;
Whereas, the Board considers that the designation of a successor registry
for the .org top-level domain involves policy issues concerning the
domain-name system that should be referred to the Domain Name Supporting
Organization for its consideration and recommendations;
Whereas, under Subsection 5.1.4 of the current .org registry agreement
VeriSign must contribute a US$ 5,000,000 endowment to be used to fund future
operating costs of a non-profit entity, if one is designated by ICANN as
successor operator;
Whereas, the Board notes that the availability of this endowment should be
considered in developing policy for the future operation of the .org
top-level domain;
Whereas, the Board urges that consideration be given to the positive effects
on stability of assuring the ability of present registrants to continue
their registrations;
Resolved [01.71] that the Board refers to the Names Council for its
consideration the issues raised by the scheduled transition of the operation
of the .org top-level domain from VeriSign to a new entity, including at
least:
(a) whether to select an existing entity to succeed VeriSign as responsible
for operation of the .org TLD, or to establish a new entity;
(b) the characteristics of the entity to be selected or established;
(c) selection criteria for the entity or its organizers;
(d) principles governing its relationship with ICANN (sponsored or
unsponsored TLD, term of operation, etc.); and
(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).
Further resolved [01.72] that the Names Council is requested to provide a
report on its progress on the issues referred by resolution 01.71, including
any policy recommendations it has developed, no later than 12 October 2001;
and
Further resolved [01.73] that the report will then be posted for public
comment in advance of ICANN's third annual meeting in November 2001.

- --
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: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 19:33:22 -0400
From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The ALSC and the DNSO

Having attended the At-Large Study Committee Outreach Meeting on 5 June, and
having been advised that the "dynamic environment" (the announcement of the
ccTLDs planning to withdraw from the DNSO) may prompt the ALSC to examine
overall ICANN structural considerations (rather than solely focusing upon
the At-Large question), I would advise the General Assembly as soon as
possible to begin discussion of possible DNSO structural models as an
adjunct to the work of the ALSC.

This concern is in part motivated by recent studies posted to the ALSC that
may impact upon the future role of the General Assembly, and which may
affect the proposed Individuals' Constituency.  One such study is "ICANN and
the At Large Membership: Towards an 'Internet User Supporting Organisation'
(IUSO)," Wolfgang Kleinwæchter ; it is also motivated by the need to present
a bottoms-up view to contrast with the top-down assessment which may soon be
provided by the ALSC.

Through the DNSO Review we have come to better understand the
dysfunctionality with which we must contend; it is now time to move forward
to the next step and to begin discussions in earnest regarding the future
restructuring of our Supporting Organization.  The proper place for this
discussion is on our ga-review list.  I urge all of you to participate on
this list, to self-organize, to establish a working committee, to arrive at
a consensus view and to draft a summary paper for submission.  The future of
our Assembly, its role, its rights and powers (or lack thereof), may depend
upon your efforts.

- --
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: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 20:09:06 -0400
From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Individuals' Constituency Task Force Member

The Names Council, in accordance with its Business Plan, has formed a task
force to create an RFP for an Individuals' Constituency, and has invited the
GA Chair or a designated member of the General Assembly to be part of this
task force.   As Chair of the GA, I have declined to accept this task,
preferring instead that another member of our Assembly function in this
role.

I consider to be fitting that the author of the motion for an Individuals'
Constituency, Joop Teenstra, be chosen by the membership to join in the NC's
efforts.  Joop has long been acknowledged as the bootstrap for the
individuals' movement, and I can think of no one more passionately devoted
to this cause or better suited to take on this responsibility.

Are we agreed?

- --
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: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:22:09 -0600
From: "Earl Heather" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individuals' Constituency Task Force Member

here here

I'll second,third,fourth,...... your suggestion.

Earl Heather

> 
> I consider to be fitting that the author of the motion for an Individuals'
> Constituency, Joop Teenstra, be chosen by the membership to join in the NC's
> efforts.  Joop has long been acknowledged as the bootstrap for the
> individuals' movement, and I can think of no one more passionately devoted
> to this cause or better suited to take on this responsibility.
> 
> Are we agreed?
> 

- --
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: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 02:53:56 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] dot org

to all.
I said I was candidate to manage .org when we discussed plan B.
This obviously meant that us all, the individual and non-profit .org
DN holders from this list could associated together to assume the
management of our TLD. I feel we are grown boys enough.

I therefore propose we incorporate .ORG as a formal non-US
association under temporary articles (Secretariat can do that in a
few hours and for $35 : the world@wide foundation can foot that bill).
Every Member of the GA (i.e. from each constituency starting with
NCDNHC) owning or controlling a .org DN would be a Member. We
would then elect a temporary board and the ga-org ML would be
acting as the Members Assembly.

This way we would discuss the project as a real issue we would
bid for. As an advisory assembly we would talk with more authority
from our experience of our real project.

Marc Shneider has already set-up a site to defend our interests as
.org DN holders. May be this site which had a real success might
be a site for such a project?

Jefsey

On 00:39 08/06/01, Danny Younger said:
>Dear Assembly members,
>
>We have received the following request from the Names Council Chair:
>[please note that this message will also be posted to our new ga-org mailing
>list] --
>
>Danny,
>will you initiate discussion on the GA on the dot org referral? We are going
>to discuss process at the NC June 29 meeting. So, options from the GA for
>process would be of interest for then. Please summarise GA proposals/options
>and circulate to the NC in advance.
>Philip
>
>Dot org
>The Board has referred this issue to the NC. The constituencies (and GA) are
>asked to discuss and inform NC of their views. Timeline: First views on
>substance and process to NC meeting of 29 June.
>
>The text of the Board referral
>(http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-04jun01.htm ) is:
>Whereas, on 25 May 2001 ICANN entered into a new registry agreement with
>VeriSign, Inc. for the .org top-level domain;
>Whereas, under that agreement VeriSign's operation of the .org top-level
>domain will terminate on 31 December 2002, at which time the operation will
>be turned over to an entity designated by ICANN;
>Whereas, before the transition to operation of the .org top-level domain by
>the new entity can occur, it will be necessary to designate or establish an
>appropriate entity, to fashion its legal relationship with ICANN, to develop
>any necessary policies for the entity's operation, and to allow the entity
>to set up its business operations;
>Whereas, it is the Board's goal that these activities be completed in an
>orderly manner and in time to permit transfer of operational
>responsibilities for .org on the contracted schedule;
>Whereas, meeting this goal will require early planning and policy
>development;
>Whereas, the Board considers that the designation of a successor registry
>for the .org top-level domain involves policy issues concerning the
>domain-name system that should be referred to the Domain Name Supporting
>Organization for its consideration and recommendations;
>Whereas, under Subsection 5.1.4 of the current .org registry agreement
>VeriSign must contribute a US$ 5,000,000 endowment to be used to fund future
>operating costs of a non-profit entity, if one is designated by ICANN as
>successor operator;
>Whereas, the Board notes that the availability of this endowment should be
>considered in developing policy for the future operation of the .org
>top-level domain;
>Whereas, the Board urges that consideration be given to the positive effects
>on stability of assuring the ability of present registrants to continue
>their registrations;
>Resolved [01.71] that the Board refers to the Names Council for its
>consideration the issues raised by the scheduled transition of the operation
>of the .org top-level domain from VeriSign to a new entity, including at
>least:
>(a) whether to select an existing entity to succeed VeriSign as responsible
>for operation of the .org TLD, or to establish a new entity;
>(b) the characteristics of the entity to be selected or established;
>(c) selection criteria for the entity or its organizers;
>(d) principles governing its relationship with ICANN (sponsored or
>unsponsored TLD, term of operation, etc.); and
>(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).
>Further resolved [01.72] that the Names Council is requested to provide a
>report on its progress on the issues referred by resolution 01.71, including
>any policy recommendations it has developed, no later than 12 October 2001;
>and
>Further resolved [01.73] that the report will then be posted for public
>comment in advance of ICANN's third annual meeting in November 2001.
>
>
>
>--
>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 #518
************************