Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #519
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Friday, June 8 2001             Volume 01 : Number 519

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

Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 21:36:49 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individuals' Constituency Task Force Member

Danny Younger wrote:

> 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?

Agreed.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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 21:10:50 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] dot org

Danny and all assembly members,

  I believe that the secretariat announced a new list for .ORG related
subject matter earlier today.  Wouldn't this post belong on that new list?
Not complaining here, I appreciate you sending the to the GA list
Danny.  >;)  I am only suggesting that maybe more debate and discussion
would be better served on this new list for .ORG

Danny Younger wrote:

> 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

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: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 21:58:39 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individuals' Constituency Task Force Member

Yes,

Regards,
Joanna

on 6/7/01 8:22 PM, Earl Heather at [email-masked] wrote:

> 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
> 

- --
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 22:11:13 -0400
From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Electing a DNSO Director

Dear members,

Please note the following from the Scribe's Notes of the NC meeting:

Stubbs: An election for an ICANN Board Member seat is coming up?
Touton: Notification of identify of new Director to be made to ICANN by DNSO
by September 16. Director to be seated on October 1.

Our Bylaws state:

"Participants in the GA shall nominate, pursuant to procedures adopted by
the NC and approved by the Board, persons to serve on the Board in those
seats reserved for the DNSO."

I will ask our Secretariat to provide us with the URL for the above-cited
procedures that we may begin this process as soon as possible.

- --
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, 8 Jun 2001 12:49:46 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Individuals' Constituency Task Force Member

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
|> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 10:09 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] Individuals' Constituency Task Force Member

<snip>
|> 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?

Although I have no disagreement with Joop filling this role, I feel it
necessary to point out some potential problems with the appointment.

First I would think a call for nominations for the position would be in
order and then a vote by the GA to select the member the assembly thinks
would be best suited.  If the GA is agreeable to the Chair specifying the
appointment, I have no objection but will point out it may give reason for
others in future to state a rejection of the choice.

Second, Joop, as you mention has been predominate in the attempts to
instigate an Individuals Constituency.  He has made petition to the ICANN
Board in his endevours.   For reasons of their own, the Board has not
looked favourably on the submissions made by Joop and it appears that he is
not held in favour with that forum.  This may cause his participation in
the process to taint, in the Board's eyes, the outcomes.  I say this not to
belittle Joops achievements or to cast aspirations against him, but to
highlight the fact he appears to have generated some disfavour in certain
quarters.

In the eyes of the GA, his potential contributions may outweigh the
disadvantages.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch

- --
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, 8 Jun 2001 15:13:27 +1200 
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Individuals' Constituency Task Force Member

> 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.

Has Joop been contacted to see if he is willing and able to take this task
on?

Steven Heath
Councillor, Internet Society of NZ (.nz ccTLD Manager)
- --
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, 8 Jun 2001 11:23:37 +0800 
From: "McMeikan, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Individuals' Constituency Task Force Member

I would also support that other nominations be sought, although I can not
think of anyone better suited than Joop for this.

I think that rejection of IDNO previously is not so much aimed at Joop than
a wish that such independent positions do not get expressed.

Joop has my support, but if anyone else fits the bill then we should get
their name up as well so that the most informed and open decision can be
made.

	cya,	Andrew...

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Dassa [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Friday, June 08, 2001 10:50 AM
> To:	[email-masked]
> Subject:	RE: [ga] Individuals' Constituency Task Force Member
> 
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: [email-masked] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
> |> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 10:09 AM
> |> To: [email-masked]
> |> Subject: [ga] Individuals' Constituency Task Force Member
> 
> <snip>
> |> 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?
> 
> Although I have no disagreement with Joop filling this role, I feel it
> necessary to point out some potential problems with the appointment.
> 
> First I would think a call for nominations for the position would be in
> order and then a vote by the GA to select the member the assembly thinks
> would be best suited.  If the GA is agreeable to the Chair specifying the
> appointment, I have no objection but will point out it may give reason for
> others in future to state a rejection of the choice.
> 
> Second, Joop, as you mention has been predominate in the attempts to
> instigate an Individuals Constituency.  He has made petition to the ICANN
> Board in his endevours.   For reasons of their own, the Board has not
> looked favourably on the submissions made by Joop and it appears that he
> is
> not held in favour with that forum.  This may cause his participation in
> the process to taint, in the Board's eyes, the outcomes.  I say this not
> to
> belittle Joops achievements or to cast aspirations against him, but to
> highlight the fact he appears to have generated some disfavour in certain
> quarters.
> 
> In the eyes of the GA, his potential contributions may outweigh the
> disadvantages.
> 
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 21:02:38 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individuals' Constituency Task Force Member

Hello Danny,

I must object.

Mr Teernstra's history with the IDNO is anything but positive.

At this moment I do not have the time to give a full accounting of
why, but I will take this time either later today or tomorrow.

Normally such a detailed critique of a person might not be
appropriate, but since he is being put forward ostensibly to represent
the GA's views, I think it is entirely appropriate to go into how this
person's history shows that he goes his own way, even in defiance of
a majority of those he represents, simply because he believes that his
views are right and he knows better what is in their best interest
than they do.

I will do a more detailed analysis, with references from the
historical IDNO mailing list archives very soon.

Instead, I put forward the name of David Farrar, who has shown a top
notch commitment as well to the cause of domain owners in the DNSO,
and despite the fact that I disagree with him on some of the CORE
issues surrounding that subject, Mr Farrar has shown through his
actions and history to be above reproach and a man who cares about his
responsibilities to those he is representing, and takes those
responsibilities seriously, without trying to advance his own agenda
at their expense.

Thursday, June 07, 2001, 5:09:06 PM, Danny Younger wrote:

> 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

- -- 
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: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 23:43:34 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individuals' Constituency Task Force Member

Darryl and all assembly members,

  I agree, surprisingly enough with Darryl here.  Although Joop
has been very diligent in his efforts to get a Individual
Domain Name holders constituency formed.  I believe to
just appoint Joop or anyone else would not be appropriate.
And election should be held for this position IMHO as
well....

  THere are a number of other GA participants that have in no
small way worked hard to get an  Individual Domain Name
holders constituency formed that would make excellent
candidates for this position that deserve our unbiased
attention and consideration.

Dassa wrote:

> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: [email-masked] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
> |> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 10:09 AM
> |> To: [email-masked]
> |> Subject: [ga] Individuals' Constituency Task Force Member
>
> <snip>
> |> 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?
>
> Although I have no disagreement with Joop filling this role, I feel it
> necessary to point out some potential problems with the appointment.
>
> First I would think a call for nominations for the position would be in
> order and then a vote by the GA to select the member the assembly thinks
> would be best suited.  If the GA is agreeable to the Chair specifying the
> appointment, I have no objection but will point out it may give reason for
> others in future to state a rejection of the choice.
>
> Second, Joop, as you mention has been predominate in the attempts to
> instigate an Individuals Constituency.  He has made petition to the ICANN
> Board in his endevours.   For reasons of their own, the Board has not
> looked favourably on the submissions made by Joop and it appears that he is
> not held in favour with that forum.  This may cause his participation in
> the process to taint, in the Board's eyes, the outcomes.  I say this not to
> belittle Joops achievements or to cast aspirations against him, but to
> highlight the fact he appears to have generated some disfavour in certain
> quarters.
>
> In the eyes of the GA, his potential contributions may outweigh the
> disadvantages.
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 16:47:21 +1000
From: "List Admin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Acronyms, Guides & Directories

On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:22:53 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:

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

Hi Jeff

This now resolves to http://whatis.techtarget.com/ and I have included it
there as follows:

> > Whatis.com            http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> > Definitions for thousands of the most current IT-related words

Thank you and others for your efforts.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 17:30:42 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Excluding inputs to the WG

On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 03:43:30 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
To: General Assembly of the DNSO <[email-masked]>
Cc: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>; Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>

> All assembly members,
>
>   FYI.  It would seem that the IETF as I had disagreed with
> Harald on last week seems to be yet again in some turmoil
> on procedural issues, and ones that seem to revolve around
> DNS related issues.  Therefore I thought that sharing this
> with the DNSO GA was of some importance and interest...
>
> Robert Elz wrote:
>
> > For poisson people - the message below (quoted in full, other than
headers)
> > appeared on he namedroppers list - the WG list for the dnsext WG...

<snip>

For those who don't know him, Robert Elz is, of course, the delegate for the
.au country code.

Regards
Patrick Corliss
Alternate Chair, DNSO GA

- --
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 04:06:41 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-icann] ICANN May Face Restructuring

Patrick and all,

  And Stuart Lynn stated in the previously posted ICANN Announcement
that the Stockholm meeting was a great success.  Makes one wonder
whether Stuart considers a success...  Stew, care to help shed some
light on this discrepancy?

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> ICANN May Face Restructuring
> By Juliana Gruenwald, Interactive Week
> June 7, 2001 4:25 PM ET
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2770858,00.html
>
> STOCKHOLM, Sweden - After more than two years of existence, the Internet's
> domain name management body could go through a major face-lift as it
> responds to calls for a shift in the representation of some of its
> constituencies.
>
> Internet industry representatives and others say the Internet Corporation
> for Assigned Names and Numbers will likely have to go through a
> restructuring if it agrees to act on a call by the operators of the
> country-code top-level domains, such as dot-uk. Looking for more of a voice
> with regard to issues under ICANN's jurisdiction, the ccTLD operators have
> asked for a separate supporting organization.
>
> The ccTLD operators made the request during ICANN's quarterly board meeting
> in Stockholm, which ended Monday. The ccTLDs are currently one of seven
> constituencies that make up the Domain Name Supporting Organization, which
> advises ICANN on domain name policy issues. The ccTLD operators say they are
> withdrawing from the DNSO because they do not feel their interests are
> adequately represented. The DNSO generally focuses on issues related to
> generic top-level domain names (gTLDs), such as dot-com and dot-net, but it
> also has been criticized for being ineffective.
>
> Country-code operators say they should have greater influence in ICANN,
> given that they provide as much as one third of ICANN's funding. They said
> they would continue to make voluntary contributions to fund ICANN's
> operations as long as the ICANN staff works toward the development of a
> ccTLD supporting organization.
>
> While noting that the ccTLDs still support the ICANN process, Peter de
> Blanc, the operator for the Virgin Islands country code, told the board,
> "What we're looking for is an improved structure."
>
> In addition to the DNSO, ICANN has two supporting organizations that focus
> on technical issues. Each of the three groups is given three seats on
> ICANN's 18-member board. The nine other seats are set aside for at-large
> representatives. ICANN President M. Stuart Lynn also serves on the board as
> an ex-officio member.
>
> The ccTLDs are expected to also want representation on the board, which will
> require ICANN to reshuffle its current makeup.
>
> Other constituencies are looking for representation as well. ICANN is in the
> midst of a study of whether general Internet users should have formal
> representation in ICANN. When it was created, ICANN was supposed to allow
> general Internet users to elect nine representatives to the board. But so
> far, ICANN has held only one election for five of the at-large seats. The
> other four seats are still held by directors appointed when ICANN was
> created in 1998. ICANN officials say they will not make a decision on
> whether to hold another election until the at-large study committee finishes
> its work.
>
> Some supporters of at-large representation say they are concerned that some
> of the four at-large seats could be given to the ccTLDs.
>
> "It certainly is very convenient for those who don't want half of the board
> elected by the at-large" community, said Milton Mueller, an information
> studies professor at Syracuse University.
>
> Don Simon, general counsel for public interest organization Common Cause,
> said it would be a "real breach of faith" if ICANN gave any at-large seats
> to the ccTLDs before the study is completed.
>
> Others say if ICANN does give the ccTLDs their own supporting organization
> with seats on the board, other groups that help fund ICANN's operations will
> demand representation as well. These include the registries that operate the
> existing gTLDs and the new ones set to become available this year and the
> registrars that sell Internet registrations to the public.
>
> "We will have to reconstitute ICANN," said Karl Auerbach, an at-large member
> of the ICANN board who opposes giving different business groups seats on the
> board.
>
> The line between ccTLDs and gTLDs has been blurred because some operators
> are marketing country-code domains such as dot-TV and dot-LA as global
> domains, one industry source said on condition of anonymity. As a result,
> those ccTLDs would have a competitive advantage if ccTLD representatives
> were added to the board, the source argued.
>
> ICANN officials have expressed support for the ccTLDs' call for greater
> representation. But how ICANN might be restructured is a matter for debate
> among interested parties.
>
> The ccTLDs' demand "will have implications [for ICANN's structure]. But how
> [we]...factor that in and how it will affect the conclusions, I am rather
> neutral," said former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, the chairman of the
> at-large study committee.
>
> Another member of the ICANN board, Jonathan Cohen, has proposed some
> alternative structures for ICANN. One proposal would create several
> supporting organizations that would elect members to the board. It would be
> made up of the three current supporting organizations and new ones created
> for ccTLD operators, gTLD operators, registrars and at-large Internet users.
> Under all three alternatives he has suggested, the at-large community would
> retain only five at-large seats, instead of the nine proposed when ICANN was
> created.
>
> Another proposal offered by Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, an international
> communication policy professor at Denmark's University of Aarhus, would call
> on Internet users to create their own Internet User Supporting Organization
> that would have nine seats on ICANN's board.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-icann" 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: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 22:27:22 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Electing a DNSO Director

On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 22:11:13 -0400, you wrote:

>"Participants in the GA shall nominate, pursuant to procedures adopted by
>the NC and approved by the Board, persons to serve on the Board in those
>seats reserved for the DNSO."
>
>I will ask our Secretariat to provide us with the URL for the above-cited
>procedures that we may begin this process as soon as possible.

Excellent - thanks Danny.  Would be useful to know the name of the
person whose term is up.

While it is the NC not the GA which votes on the Board member it would
be useful if all those people interested in the nomination
participated here and took part in Q&As etc.  

I would certainly be interested to ask nominees under what
circumstances they would vote for a Board resolution which has been
opposed by the DNSO which appointed them.

Also an understanding of what priorities potential nominees envision
for themselves would be good.

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: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 06:33:41 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The ALSC and the DNSO

Nothing here against Joop and I can understand the Individuals' Constituency
concept, however, it appears to me that the DNSO GA is too thin within its own
current membership and agenda to support any additional constituencies.  Why is
the GA supporting an Individuals' Constituency instead of moving forward to
advance the subject on its own?  The Individuals' Constituency appears to be a
dinosaur already in light of the movement to restructure the ICANN SOs.

It appears to me that the problem the DNSO GA faces is that it lacks the
participation necessary to reach any valid consensus.  There is a difference
between 5 or 6 participants agreeing on subject matter and valid consensus.

I can agree with Mr. Younger in that we should focus on what should be the
work-item agenda of the GA.  We should take the bull by the horns here with what
we have to work with and produce constructive product for review instead of
spreading the few participants here so thin that we lose our ability to
communicate and lose our ability to develop and advance concepts.

ICANN itself appears to be signaling its willingness to restructure.  Why is the
GA not taking the lead in developing and advancing working concepts.

I believe that the Individuals' Constituency concept is a bad idea at this time.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Danny Younger wrote:

> 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

- --
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 12:36:38 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-roots] Alternate Roots, Naming Systems Coming Under Fire

Dear Patrick,
do not be abused by WXW's tricks. He confuses purposedly the
issues. Talking seriously about anything is a serious work.
Everything has been done on the ga-roots (starting with chosing a
wrong name) to make a joke of this debate. I fully agree with the
NC: multiple roots are what they are: foreign to the iCANN.

Here we should be concerned about the doctrine and the strategy
of iCANN about the DNS name space and more actively of the
iCANN management of the iCANN name space.

The way iCANN translates the single authoritative root into
iCANNese does not affect the other translations in Chinese,
American, French, German, Russian, Viet-Namese, Pacific,
Cinics, Ironic, ORSCese, etc... All are the same single
authoritative root, even if some are less achieved than others.
This is true that iCANN's translation lacks a Technical
Manager to keep it updated. It is likely that, until the position
is filled, the Staff will not dare to include foreign sub-name
space elements as the other roots do. I think this advisable:
you need a certain level of competence to do so (look at
their .biz bug already), all the more than their translation is
still the most widely used to date.

Jefsey

On 11:38 08/06/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 01:51:42 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote
> > Friday, June 08, 2001, 1:42:54 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> >
> > > But at least one ICANN board member, Karl Auerbach, takes a different
>view
> > > on the issue, saying that "there need not be a single uniform namespace
>that
> > > everyone conforms to."
> >
> > Strange, his compadres in the alt.root community on this list don't
> > seem to agree with him.
>
>Hi William
>
>Hard to tell, from the quote, who agrees with Karl and who doesn't.  My
>understanding, from previous list discussions, is that most people in the
>alt.root community agree with Karl's paper on Multiple Roots.  I'd ask
>anyone who doesn't to raise their hands.
>
>Best regards
>Patrick Corlis
>
>"What I would say to the House Commerce Committee were I invited to testify"
>by Karl Auerbach.
>
><snip>
>
>2.  Multiple Roots are "a good thing"
>
>http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/issue_2.htm#multiple_roots
>
>It wasn't that many years ago in the United States when there was one big,
>monolithic telephone company.
>
>It was taken as gospel by many that the stability of the telephone network
>depended on there being one unified, monolithic telephone company.
>
>We've seen through that.  Today we have a flourishing competitive telephone
>system filled with all kinds of commercial and technical offerings that were
>inconceivable during the days of "Ma Bell".
>
>We routinely use directory services in a multiplicity of forms -- telephone
>books published by local telephone companies or entrepreneurs, 411 services
>in
>various shapes and forms,  web pages, or even on CD-ROMs (indeed a well
>known
>Supreme Court case involved a telephone directory published on CD-ROM).
>
>These telephone directories are not published by any unified authority,
>there is
>no regulatory body sitting over them.  And we as consumers are not damaged
>or
>harmed by this.  And the telephone system continues to work just fine.
>
>Yet, on the Internet there are those who wail and gnash their teeth at the
>thought that the Domain Name System, the Internet's "white pages" might have
>multiple points of entry.
>
>Indeed, the whole series of documents from NTIA -- including the Green and
>White
>Papers -- and the existence of ICANN is founded on the notion that there is
>but
>one root system for the Domain Name System.
>
>I assert that those nay-sayers are wrong.
>
>I assert that just like the telephone system can have multiple publishers of
>telephone directory services, the Internet can have multiple roots to the
>Domain
>Name System.
>
>There is no doubt that as a purely technical matter, the Internet can have
>multiple root systems for the DNS.  It has had these for years.
>
>The question is whether to recognize the value and use of multiple root
>systems
>and not foreclose them.
>
>Let's get a bit more specific.
>
>When I say "multiple root systems", I mean a regime in which you, or I, or
>anybody can set up a set of computers to serve as a suite of root servers
>for
>the DNS.
>
>In other words, you, or I, or anybody could establish a group of computers
>to
>operate in parallel with, and not necessarily in administrative coordination
>with, the legacy A-L.root-servers.net computers now operated by NSI, IANA,
>ICANN
>and others.
>
> >From a technical point of view all that a root server group does is to give
>its
>users a way to find the DNS servers that handle the various Top Level
>Domains
>(TLDs).  The root servers do not themselves answer queries about what names
>are
>inside the various TLDs.  Those questions are passed on to the TLD servers
>themselves.
>
>That is a subtle point and a point that is often lost when discussing the
>DNS.
>
>It bears repeating -- all that a root server does is to answer queries about
>how
>to find a server handling a TLD named in the query.  In other words, a root
>server only answers queries such as "Where do I find a server that contains
>the
>list of names in .com?".
>
>Now that we know that root servers and root server systems are nothing more
>than
>the doorway through which one enters the Domain System, we can ask this
>question:
>
>What happens when we begin to think of the Domain Name System not as an
>intrinsic core service of the Internet, but rather as an elective service
>that
>can be offered by many providers and among which customers and user select
>based
>on the packages offered by the providers?
>
>I'll give you a preview of the answer: We end up with a stable Internet with
>no
>loss of reachability.  We get a system of competitive root operators who
>make
>business decisions about what TLDs they want to incorporate into their
>"inventory".  We get rid of questions about "how many TLDs should be
>created?".
>We don't need complicated ICANN-like quasi-governmental agencies overseeing
>the
>DNS and the Internet.  And we end up with a means for communities of users
>to
>fine tune the view of the Internet Landscape that they want to allow into
>their
>communities.
>
>So, you should be asking yourselves, how does this Nirvana come about?
>
>Imagine each operator of a root server system as a store.  The shelves
>contain
>the store's inventory.  In this case the inventory consists of TLDs that the
>root server system knows about.
>
>Thus, a user of a root server system will perceive a Domain Name name space
>composed of the TLDs in the store (the root server system) that that user
>has
>elected to use.
>
>Now, I should mention, that when I say "user has elected to use", I don't
>really
>usually mean the end-user directly.  In most cases, the end-user will have
>delegated the choice to that user's ISP or to his or her organizational
>information manager.  Of course, the technically inclined, such as myself,
>will
>tend to make the choice for ourselves.
>
>How does a root server operator select the inventory of TLDs that it wishes
>to
>offer?  The answer is "whatever satisfies the needs and demands of the
>operator's customer base."
>
>If we look at this through the eyes of a businessman operating a root server
>system, we realize that there are two elements that the customers will care
>about: TLD coverage and value added services.
>
>As a general rule, customers of a root server system will act much like
>subscribers to a cable TV system -- they will want as many TLDs (or as many
>channels) as they can get.  This will drive the root server system operators
>to
>include as many viable TLDs as they can into their inventory.
>
>The net result of all the root system operators following this strategy will
>be
>that they all attempt to trump one another by each including more TLDs.  The
>end
>of this is that all root server operators will incorporate all viable TLDs.
>The
>benefit of this is that the domain names of all people and organizations who
>have registrations in these TLDs will be essentially universally resolvable
>no
>matter which root server system us being used.
>
>I've used the phrase "viable TLDs" to describe those which are of a
>character
>that most reasonable root system operators would feel that they could
>incorporate that TLD into their inventory without undue risk of problems.
>It is
>easiest to define "viable TLDs" by listing what kind of TLDs would be
>non-viable.  TLDs that are being contested are not very viable.  Thus, if
>two or
>more claimants were offering different versions of a TLD named ".foo", it
>would
>be unlikely that any root system operator would add any version of ".foo" to
>the
>inventory.
>
>This tends to remove the issue of TLD ownership from the current ICANN
>regulatory framework and place it where it belongs -- in the traditional
>give
>and take world of business and open market economics.
>
>Since all root server systems will tend to eventually incorporate all viable
>TLDs into their inventory, value added services will tend to become the
>differentiating factor between root server systems.  One might well ask how
>a
>root server system can offer value added services?  It does seem an odd
>concept
>at first, but then again, a few years ago, the notion of value added long
>distance telephone services was an odd concept.
>
>An example of a value added service would be that of filtration -- A root
>server
>system operator may offer a service in which customers who use that root
>will be
>able to have the responses cleaned of any answers that are sources of
>pornographic material.  This could be a valuable tool for communities that
>wish
>to tailor their view of the Internet Landscape according to their own
>community
>standards.  And it is a mechanism which allows any member to opt out of the
>community, and its restrictions, simply by selecting another root server
>operator.
>
>Yes, there are other ways to achieve the same kind of filtering, but who are
>we
>to say which methods are the most viable?  Indeed, we should be careful not
>to
>dismiss, or worse to foreclose, an area of Internet entrepreneurship simply
>because we don't see the immediate value.
>
>I'd like to finish this discussion about multiple roots with a few
>observations.
>
>Multiple root systems add to the stability of the internet by removing a
>dependence on a single root system for the Domain Name System.
>
>Multiple root systems eliminate the need to face questions such as "what new
>gTLDs should be added" - multiple root systems permit the marketplace to
>provide
>the answer.
>
>Multiple root systems provide means for inventors and entrepreneurs to
>create
>new ways of packaging DNS servers.  And I've suggested one such extension
>that
>could add a new means for individuals or communities to shield themselves
>from
>the tidal wave of questionable material on the Internet.
>
>So, why have multiple root systems not evolved?
>
>One of the reasons is that the existing system has so far worked reasonably
>well, so there has been little pressure.  But there is a very strong
>secondary
>reason -- those who have advocated or established a multiple root system
>have
>been shunned by the technical community.
>
>But the biggest reason why it hasn't happened is that ever since the NTIA
>process started, the idea that there could be multiple roots has been swept
>aside with an administrative flick of the wrist and an offhand repetition of
>the
>stale legend: "oh that would never comport with network stability".
>
><snip>
>
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga-roots" 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 #519
************************