Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #537
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, June 14 2001           Volume 01 : Number 537

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 23:36:22 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: I think you're wrong - Re: WXW GA Director - Re: [ga] Reply to William  Walsh

The GA active participants here cannot establish any valid GA positions individually.  It
takes a record of coordinated effort to show valid positions.  Without a record showing
coordinated effort and the valid consensus, GA positions are without merit and easily
challenged.

It is far harder to challenge an organized structure consisting of 9 GA Directors that
have determined the GA's consensus and positions through its review of verifiable
information and comments submitted to the GA forum.  It would be easier for GA Directors
to rationalize GA information.

The purpose of the GA is to establish GA positions based upon valid consensus, and to
present its findings to the NC for review.  What I have proposed in suggesting 9 GA
Directors does not conflict with the purpose of the GA nor does it conflict with the DNSO
Charter (Where does it conflict with the DNSO Charter?).

Furthermore, what I proposed will stabilize and enhance the GA's performance and possibly
save the GA from the NC's chopping block.

Other constituencies within the DNSO are progressing in developing agendas and developing
their positions concerning their agendas.  The way the other constituencies within the
DNSO are performing works for them.  The GA has not reached valid consensus regarding any
subject matter and so I am suggesting that we do something about it.

What is really scary here are that the players from the WG-Review are now involved in the
GA demanding that their ideas will work when in fact they failed in the WG-Review
process.  The NC killed the WG-Review process because it was non-effective at producing
valid consensus on any tangible subject matter.  This is because the WG-Review process was
not properly structured, nor able to properly coordinate with its members, this is why the
WG-Review process was non-effective at producing valid consensus on any tangible subject
matter.

I hope the players from the WG-Review can see that their structure and process did not
work.  I hope people here can see that a new process should be tested.

I am not challenging the GA Chair's performance.  What I have proposed does not displace
the current GA process.  However, what I proposed with the 9 GA Directors may show that
most GA active participants here will not stand behind GA positions, and this should
change.  The GA needs at least 9 individuals to stand behind GA positions.  Thus far, I
count 3 individuals who will stand behind GA positions.  Who else should be added to the
MEMBERS SUPPORTING GA POSITIONS list?

MEMBERS SUPPORTING GA POSITIONS
1.  Danny Younger    GA Chair
2.  Patrick Corliss    GA Co-Chair
3.  Derek Conant

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Derek,
>
> There are no GA directors, and this body can work within itself, it
> does not need to elect "representatives" to an executive board to get
> results.
>
> That removes the entire purpose of the GA.
>
> The suggestion is out of bounds, since it would require a change of
> the DNSO charter anyway.
>
> Wednesday, June 13, 2001, 5:36:20 PM, Derek Conant wrote:
>
> > Such a thing can exist if we put it into motion.  How can we get to work without a
> > stable representative body.  Anything less than a showing of coordination that
> > produces valid results is only chat session in the end is my point.
>
> > If the GA supports your being a GA Director would you accept the position for 2
> > months?  Why not take an active role in determining the GA's direction and positions
> > regarding subject matter?  This would be considered constructive for the GA.
>
> > Derek Conant
> > DNSGA President and Chairman
>
> > "William X. Walsh" wrote:
>
> >> Hello Derek,
> >>
> >> Wednesday, June 13, 2001, 3:27:19 PM, Derek Conant wrote:
> >>
> >> > This looks like chat to me.  Now that we are over this, let's move forward with
> >> > something more tangible here for the GA.
> >>
> >> > Are you willing to be a GA Director?  If so great!  If not, why not?
> >>
> >> Because such a thing does not exist.
> >>
> >> Let's dismiss all these wild ideas and get down to work.
> >>
> >> Danny, are you going to lead us or what?
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
>
> --
> 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

- --
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: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:51:02 -0600
From: "Earl Heather" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reply to William Walsh

Mr Younger

Might I ask a simple question ?

What exactly is your past experiance at managing a consensus driven 
process? Or Mr. Corliss' ?

Polar opposite opinions are standard fare when searching for 
consensus - they are not a sign that the process is failing but instead 
indicate how passionately these opinions are held and that there is still 
plenty of 'energy' left in the discussion participants.

What the Chairs do to help the participants find compromise between 
these opinions, both in highlighting those points where there is 
agreement and focusing the discussion where there isn't determines 
the success or failure of the process.

This process can be extremely frustrating for those who would prefer 
a more 'efficient' approach, but efficiency is not a priority when 
consensus is.

Suggesting that finding consensus is too hard - so we should give up 
and simply elect 9 GA Directors as Mr. Conant proposes is
(regardless of his intentions to be constructive) extremely destructive 
to the consensus process.

Sure seems to be a lot of well intentioned people here who just don't 
agree on everything rather than ill intentions on anyones part.

Can the Chairs help us find consensus ?

                    Not from what I've seen so far.

Is anyone out there still interested in trying ?

                    Fewer every day if we continue to beat up each other

sorry if I've offended anyone - that's not my intent

Earl Heather

> Hello William,
> 
> Your incessant droning about what the Chairs should and should not be doing
> is becoming rather odious.  Patrick has politely asked you , "whether you
> see a place for working groups with the General Assembly?  Or do you see the
> whole thing as a single "chat room" as Eric has called it?"  Instead of
> giving him a direct answer you choose to pursue this unending litany.  As
> much as you speak about leadership, you appear to be looking for nothing
> more than a chat-room moderator.   I would offer you the job, but you have
> turned down every offer made to you so far.
> 
>>>>snip
- --
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: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:07:33 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

I also join with Sotiris and Joop in this sentiment.

Bill Lovell

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > Danny and GA members,
> >
> > Danny Younger is an elected Chair of this Assembly, not an appointee.
> > A posting like the above deserves support, respect for the majority that
> > elected Danny and not inane criticism.  I am dismayed at some of the
> > postings that I have seen from the last 24 hours.
> >
> > I also take seriously the charter of the DNSO that tells me why I am a
> > member of this Assembly:
> > "The participants in the GA should be individuals who have a
> >      knowledge of and an interest in issues pertaining to the areas for
> >      which the DNSO has primary responsibility, and who are willing to
> >      contribute time, effort and expertise to the work of the DNSO, including
> >      work item proposal and development, discussion of work items, draft
> >      document preparation, and participation in research and drafting
> >      committees and working groups."
> >
> > I'll try to be of help, if such an Organizing committee can be formed and
> > other appointees are willing to accept the task. But every proposal that
> > comes out of such an Organizing Committee must be subjected to a  voting
> > process for endorsement or amendments by the other members of the GA.
> >
> > Even Karl Auerbach, who has always been consistent in advocating
> > accountability, expressed a few days ago how he saw merit in the closed
> > character of the BWG (Boston Working Group).
> > I too, have experienced the limits of totally open efforts in organizing
> > the IDNO. ("bottom-up, the final illusion" I wrote, disillusioned)
> >
> > We have elected our Chair in the hope of getting things done. We should now
> > close ranks behind him to make it happen.
>
> All,
>
> I believe Joop is making an excellent point here.  I think it's time we stood
> behind the Chair and actively bolstered his position.  We can do no less,
> especially considering his steadfast and impressive showing in Stockholm.  I
> readily accept the appointment, and hope the rest will also.  I urge William
> Walsh to reconsider his position and to join myself and any of the others
> interested in making meaningful contributions.  I think the time has come to put
> aside the invective and get some work done.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> 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

- --
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm

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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 23:59:40 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] "They're Coming To Take Me Away.  Ha Ha."

Conspiracy theories are fun, aren't they? But they are also without
accountability. They free "us", whomever that is, from  having to do real
work. 

after all, real work wouldn't be recognized anyway, because... fill in
conspiracy theory 1,2,2.5, etc.

That's .... entertainment.

But not work.

I struggle to have time to even read our GA emails to each other. Real work
issue which threatens the net, like the Cyber Crime treaty, data retention,
and Hague Convention, legislation being introduced in Ohio, Nevada (U.S.),
or Netherlands/Germany, governing the content of the Net and creating
"islands" of content take over my real day to day life. Not ICANN issues,
but real, "stop the Net" issues.

Let's see if we can together achieve a meaningful role/narrow set of
activities which deserves our time.  I have to go off and do real  hand to
hand combat on the issues above.. THEY AREN'T ICANN'S ISSUES.  AND I, IN
PARTICULAR DON'T WANT THEM TO BE.... But doing the technical aspects of the
Net are so critical, that I must pay attention there too...   I want GA to
be meaningful - I assume that we can find a way to truly represent
perspectives and dialogue and contribute.... I don't subscribe to conspiracy
theories because ... I suspect that after all, good and well meaning folks
would route around them anyway.  :-)

Let's forgive each other for not being perfect. Let's agree that we can be
pleasant, as we are to the folks next door where we live, on the streets we
walk on, and remember it is flesh and blood we interact with...  and let's
see if there is work to do. 

Okay, ideas for work:     There is a questionnaire from the DNSO on WHOIS.
How about we post it, and encourage all XXX GA members to fill it in,
factually.  Small request. But a deliverable.  I know, we all have opinions.
I'm interested in facts... let's learn together.

Secondly, how about we ask the GA members what their characteristics are:
in broad categories, so we can say: the GA is representative of:   XX SMEs;
XX Corporations; XX non profits/civil libertarian organizations; XX
individual concerned about YYY; XX universities; XX... please realize I'm
struggling with categories... my only purpose for this is to say: let's see
if we can say "we are representative and of what, and then we can also use
the data to recruit... participation.

thirdly, I wondered if the GA would agree to schedule itself BEFORE the
constituencies so that it can be more of a vehicle into the Constituencies,
as we "used" to do... [I know, I suffer from being around tooooo long]...
but that made the GA really more useful/meaningful... means that the
constituencies don't report in, but instead, take input from...

Fourthly, how about inviting a presentation from the IAB/IETF (happy to help
to plan) on the issues which are really critical, from technical standpoint.
We have started this in the ISPC and BC, and it is really a  great learning
and educational experience.  And, of course, we have some folks already in
the GA who are leaders in these issues... and could ask their help in
getting very high level presenters...

I can tell you that the constituencies are very appreciative of their time
and feel that they are learning from these exchanges.  I bet that using the
GA for this would be even more powerful... and have a broader impact...
think of it: shared knowledge... and opportunity to dialogue. Let's not get
into "challenge" but think of it as "dialogue".  [Referees will be .....
never mind.  :-)]

anyone interested in these ideas?/??  They are only suggestions, so can you
deal with the merits, and avoid attacking the suggestor?  It would be nice
if we could get to the part where this plea isn't necessary.

I'll count the criticisms, try to find meaning in them,  and look for the
meaningful comments.

Regards, Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Alternate Chair [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 8:42 PM
To: William S. Lovell
Cc: Derek Conant, DNSGA; Philip Sheppard; [ga]; M. Stuart Lynn, ICANN
Subject: [ga] "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha."

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:38:24 -0700, William S. Lovell <[email-masked]>
wrote:
To: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>; DNSO Secretariat
<[email-masked]>; M. Stuart Lynn <[email-masked]>
Cc: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Thanks for support

> This whole dnsga/dnso ga bit is getting everyone confused.  Actual
> confusion is the best proof of likelihood of confusion in trademark
> (and, of course, service mark) law.  If ICANN legal staff are not drafting
> a "cease and desist" letter to this dnsga.org upstart they ought to be.

Hi Bill

Thank you for your comment.  Danny Younger, the Chair of the DNSO GA seems
like an intelligent and well-meaning person.  Derek Conant, the Chair of the
DNSGA seems like an intelligent and well-meaning person  When Danny Younger,
the Chair of the DNSO GA made one proposal relating to the DNSO GA, Derek
Conant, the Chair of the DNSGA, the Chair of the DNSGA, made a well-meaning
but confusing counter-proposal.   Now everybody is confused.

Ahha !!  But is the confusion deliberate ??

But, if you look at the whole history of the GA as a think-tank, you will
see that it is particularly ineffective.  Every proposal to move forward is
met with a counter-proposal.  Every suggestion, however mild, is met with
rejection, hostility or criticism.  Diversion of topic is the norm and there
are far more postings about the process than the substantive issues.

Of course, much of this is expected in a think-tank consisting of
intelligent and informed persons many of whom have an interest in the
outcome.  But as an intelligent person myself I find it incredibly hard to
believe that all this confusion is a natural result of the list dynamics.

I agree that leadership is required and of course that leadership MUST
listen to the comments of the list members and act within the rules, but
there is a problem.  That is that the leadership feels increasingly
alienated by the stridency of the views expressed.  And increasingly
confused.   The reaction is inevitable, the leadership becomes isolated and
out of touch wiith reality.  Angry, desperate and unpredictable.

This is seen in a total failure to heed well-meaning advice.  And paranoia.

Which brings me to the conclusion that there is, somewhere, a mastermind
guiding the whole scheme. It's a well-known strategy of disinformation used
by security services around the world.  Some have naturally attributed the
problem to the shadow services (or Verisign -- an associate).  Others think
it's inspired by ICANN or its staff.   Personally I don't know who.  But I
more than sense the countervailing forces.

And I salute the opposing General !!!

Best 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
- --
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, 14 Jun 2001 00:39:18 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: I think you're wrong - Re: WXW GA Director - Re: [ga] Reply to  William Walsh

Derek Conant wrote:
> 
> The GA active participants here cannot establish any valid GA positions individually.  It
> takes a record of coordinated effort to show valid positions.  Without a record showing
> coordinated effort and the valid consensus, GA positions are without merit and easily
> challenged.
> 
> It is far harder to challenge an organized structure consisting of 9 GA Directors that
> have determined the GA's consensus and positions through its review of verifiable
> information and comments submitted to the GA forum.  It would be easier for GA Directors
> to rationalize GA information.
> 
> The purpose of the GA is to establish GA positions based upon valid consensus, and to
> present its findings to the NC for review.  What I have proposed in suggesting 9 GA
> Directors does not conflict with the purpose of the GA nor does it conflict with the DNSO
> Charter (Where does it conflict with the DNSO Charter?).
> 
> Furthermore, what I proposed will stabilize and enhance the GA's performance and possibly
> save the GA from the NC's chopping block.

This is nonsense. 

We already have the NC, responsible for "managing consensus" and generally directing
the DNSO, and the GA chair and co-chair responsible for co-ordinating things within
the GA. We emphatically do not need another layer of directors.

If the NC or the chairs aren't doing those jobs, then let's talk about how to
change that, but let's not complicate things with more 'directors'.
- --
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: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 23:57:42 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: I think you're wrong - Re: WXW GA Director - Re: [ga] Reply to William  Walsh

Derek and all assembly members,

Derek Conant wrote:

> The GA active participants here cannot establish any valid GA positions individually.  It
> takes a record of coordinated effort to show valid positions.  Without a record showing
> coordinated effort and the valid consensus, GA positions are without merit and easily
> challenged.

  Indeed it is true that the lack of coordinated and voted upon resolutions from the
GA it can be easily challenged.  Notice I said VOTED UPON resolutions.  This
is an important point.  The GA members must decide what positions they hold
through a motion process, which is pretty standard for and assembly and
an assembly process.  Just before Stockholm, two such resolutions were
passed and set to the NC fro their review.  This is the proper process.
However other motions that were seconded were either ignored or denied
by the chair.  They were never given a chance to have the GA membership
register and official vote on them.  This I believe is where the crux of the
problem resides.

>
>
> It is far harder to challenge an organized structure consisting of 9 GA Directors that
> have determined the GA's consensus and positions through its review of verifiable
> information and comments submitted to the GA forum.  It would be easier for GA Directors to
> rationalize GA information.

  I don't care if you have 1, 9, or 90 directors.  Unless or until the GA members
have the reasonable opportunity to vote on any motions or resolutions, no
consensus can be accurately determined.

>
>
> The purpose of the GA is to establish GA positions based upon valid consensus, and to
> present its findings to the NC for review.  What I have proposed in suggesting 9 GA
> Directors does not conflict with the purpose of the GA nor does it conflict with the DNSO
> Charter (Where does it conflict with the DNSO Charter?).
>
> Furthermore, what I proposed will stabilize and enhance the GA's performance and possibly
> save the GA from the NC's chopping block.
>
> Other constituencies within the DNSO are progressing in developing agendas and developing
> their positions concerning their agendas.  The way the other constituencies within the
> DNSO are performing works for them.  The GA has not reached valid consensus regarding any
> subject matter and so I am suggesting that we do something about it.
>
> What is really scary here are that the players from the WG-Review are now involved in the
> GA demanding that their ideas will work when in fact they failed in the WG-Review
> process.  The NC killed the WG-Review process because it was non-effective at producing
> valid consensus on any tangible subject matter.  This is because the WG-Review process was
> not properly structured, nor able to properly coordinate with its members, this is why the
> WG-Review process was non-effective at producing valid consensus on any tangible subject
> matter.
>
> I hope the players from the WG-Review can see that their structure and process did not
> work.  I hope people here can see that a new process should be tested.
>
> I am not challenging the GA Chair's performance.  What I have proposed does not displace
> the current GA process.  However, what I proposed with the 9 GA Directors may show that
> most GA active participants here will not stand behind GA positions, and this should
> change.  The GA needs at least 9 individuals to stand behind GA positions.  Thus far, I
> count 3 individuals who will stand behind GA positions.  Who else should be added to the
> MEMBERS SUPPORTING GA POSITIONS list?
>
> MEMBERS SUPPORTING GA POSITIONS
> 1.  Danny Younger    GA Chair
> 2.  Patrick Corliss    GA Co-Chair
> 3.  Derek Conant
>
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
>
> "William X. Walsh" wrote:
>
> > Hello Derek,
> >
> > There are no GA directors, and this body can work within itself, it
> > does not need to elect "representatives" to an executive board to get
> > results.
> >
> > That removes the entire purpose of the GA.
> >
> > The suggestion is out of bounds, since it would require a change of
> > the DNSO charter anyway.
> >
> > Wednesday, June 13, 2001, 5:36:20 PM, Derek Conant wrote:
> >
> > > Such a thing can exist if we put it into motion.  How can we get to work without a
> > > stable representative body.  Anything less than a showing of coordination that
> > > produces valid results is only chat session in the end is my point.
> >
> > > If the GA supports your being a GA Director would you accept the position for 2
> > > months?  Why not take an active role in determining the GA's direction and positions
> > > regarding subject matter?  This would be considered constructive for the GA.
> >
> > > Derek Conant
> > > DNSGA President and Chairman
> >
> > > "William X. Walsh" wrote:
> >
> > >> Hello Derek,
> > >>
> > >> Wednesday, June 13, 2001, 3:27:19 PM, Derek Conant wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > This looks like chat to me.  Now that we are over this, let's move forward with
> > >> > something more tangible here for the GA.
> > >>
> > >> > Are you willing to be a GA Director?  If so great!  If not, why not?
> > >>
> > >> Because such a thing does not exist.
> > >>
> > >> Let's dismiss all these wild ideas and get down to work.
> > >>
> > >> Danny, are you going to lead us or what?
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> 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
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 22:22:58 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fwd: Re[2]: [ga-sys] Territorial approach to privacy issues

I'm forwarding this to the GA list, since I do strongly feel that the
entire privacy debate rightly belongs here, and this message addresses
the kinds of solutions I believe would be the better method, laying
responsibility with the end user to protect their privacy through
voluntarily signing up with services such as the one I outline a
concept for.

This is a forwarded message
From: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
To: William S. Lovell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2001, 10:07:52 PM
Subject: [ga-sys] Territorial approach to privacy issues

===8<==============Original message text===============
Hello William,

Wednesday, June 13, 2001, 9:50:25 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> Nonsense, William.  The companies have no business gathering
> the information in the first place.

> Oh, and by the way, I have just stolen your car. Would you like it
> back?  Our enlightened "opt-out policy" permits that, you know,
> through our kind and generous grace.

I love this absolutely ludicrous analogies.

They do so much to support your position.

The DO have business gathering the info, Bill.

If you don't feel that a business has a basis for collecting contact
information from it's customers, then you must be on a different
planet than the rest of us.

A production company was doing some filming in a local shopping mall
(commercials).
The mall posted notices at the entrances that filming was occuring and
that all those who entered were subject to that filming.

You could of course opt-out, by not entering the mall.

It is entirely the businesses right to decide what requirements their
customers must adhere to do be customers of that business, and that
can most certainly include (And in fact does include) that their
contact information for their domain names will be publicly available
information.  The whois service, and the registration agreements, are
in substantial compliance with the EU rules already. The only
modification is an explicit notice that the user has a right to decide
not to have their information shared by not registering a domain name.

The type of thing Joanna is pushing is the kind of thing that if the
CONSUMERS show a concern over, then the industry will drive out a
solution for them.

In thinking about the best way to handle a "Domain Agency" service, I
came up with a very easy and low cost way for a company to offer this
kind of agency service.

1) Telephone contact
A single phone line (or multiple lines using multiple modems and
busy call rollover) into a computer programmed to be a voice mail
service.  Each user is assigned an extension number.  (this
number would be a number local to the agency, not a toll free number,
since toll free incoming calls would make the cost prohibitively
expensive to offer)  Voice messages left in these mailboxes are
converting into a digital format (mp3 or wav for instance) and emailed
to the address on file for that user with the domain agency.

2) Email
An email address is given to the user in the form of
[email-masked]  Emails sent to that address
generate are quarantined and not delivered immediately.  The sender of
the message received an auto response with a unique coded URL which
they must visit to authorize the delivery of the email address.  The
email is then delivered to the user's email address on file.  The
IP Address and other identifying information on the sender are stored
and included in the message when it is delivered to the user.  The
quarantine and approval process helps to eliminate the system being
used for spam, or by those who do not provide valid return addresses,
thus minimizing abuse.  Abuse of the system can be reported to the
service, which can takes steps to minimize abuse by that sender in the
future.

3) Postal Mail
A unique box # is provided to add to the end of the postal address for
the service.  As a part of the contract, the user provides explicit
consent for the service to open and review any and all mail sent to
that address, and to discard all bulk/advertising related mail.  All
other mail is scanned and stored.  The scanned copy is emailed to the
user, and the original can be mailed to the user upon payment of a
processing fee.  The user agrees that the maximum non-unsolicited
commercial mail received for any user will not exceed xx pieces per
month, and that a service charge of $x.xx will be accessed on the next
billing period for each excess piece.  Essentially the service fee
includes processing of up to xx pieces, and the excess is billed to
the user on a per mail basis.  Stored hardcopies are kept on file for
no more than 90 days.  At 60 days a notice is sent to the user that
the mail piece is pending destruction within 30 days.

See how easy it would be to come up with solutions that still satisfy
the needs of the public for access to the information, and the ability
for a private individual to maintain their own privacy through a
privately run service, rather than unnecessary public laws?

If there was enough demand for such a service, trust me, they would
start popping up.

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

===8<===========End of original message text===========

- -- 
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, 14 Jun 2001 18:19:42 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WXW GA Director - Re: [ga] Reply to William Walsh

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:57:00 -0700, William Walsh wrote:

>Hello Derek,
>
>There are no GA directors, and this body can work within itself, it
>does not need to elect "representatives" to an executive board to get
>results.

My initial reaction to Derek's proposal was pretty negative but having
thought about it further I believe his proposal actually has
considerable merit which may be worth considering.

Almost every organisation in the world has some sort of executive
committee to co-ordinate and make sure things happen.  There is a
reason for this model - because it works.

Now once upon a time I might have suggested that the Names Council is
effectively the executive of the GA but this is clearly not the case.
The GA has no real relationship with the NC.  The GA does not elect
the NC, in fact the NC appoints the GA Chair.  The NC has no
obligation to help the GA function better even though individual
members may be supportive.

So perhaps there is merit in having the GA elect its own Executive.
This would be an Executive with no *powers* but with responsibility.
Of course they would have an open mailing list but they would act also
as an agenda former where they spend extra time on considering what
issues are upcoming, leading consultation on them, putting together a
draft position paper and then having the GA endorse or modify it.

These sort of things can be done by an group of 7 - 9 people far
easier than a mailing list of 200.  And with a more shared workload
than on 1 or 2 people only.  Everything would still come back to the
GA for endorsement but in an easily debatable form.

If the "Exec" fail to be useful or even worse a hindrance the members
can be replaced or even the thing dropped as an experiment. 

However currently as a GA we are incredibly dysfunctional and upon
reflection the idea of an accountable organising cmte/exec might be
useful to improve our output.  I believe it is certainly worth
considering.

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: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 02:39:14 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WXW GA Director - Re: [ga] Reply to William Walsh

David and all assembly members,

DPF wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:57:00 -0700, William Walsh wrote:
>
> >Hello Derek,
> >
> >There are no GA directors, and this body can work within itself, it
> >does not need to elect "representatives" to an executive board to get
> >results.
>
> My initial reaction to Derek's proposal was pretty negative but having
> thought about it further I believe his proposal actually has
> considerable merit which may be worth considering.
>
> Almost every organisation in the world has some sort of executive
> committee to co-ordinate and make sure things happen.  There is a
> reason for this model - because it works.

  In some organizations it does work.  But in most, it doesn't work
very well.  Our own US congress is a good example.  It works
sometimes, but even when it does, it does so VERY slowly.  This
is the internet, and the GA is not an organization but and assembly.
The difference is rather astounding...

>
>
> Now once upon a time I might have suggested that the Names Council is
> effectively the executive of the GA but this is clearly not the case.

  Which counters your premise just above...

>
> The GA has no real relationship with the NC.  The GA does not elect
> the NC, in fact the NC appoints the GA Chair.

  The GA elects one representative to the NC.  That is the relationship.

> The NC has no
> obligation to help the GA function better even though individual
> members may be supportive.

  This is a problem to be sure.  But the GA rep to the NC should be doing
this.  Currently that has not been too forthcoming....

>
>
> So perhaps there is merit in having the GA elect its own Executive.

  I already does!!

>
> This would be an Executive with no *powers* but with responsibility.

  Without some powers, the responsibility's cannot be managed.

>
> Of course they would have an open mailing list but they would act also
> as an agenda former where they spend extra time on considering what
> issues are upcoming, leading consultation on them, putting together a
> draft position paper and then having the GA endorse or modify it.

  This is what WG's are supposed to do within the GA.  And have done,
though not often enough...

>
>
> These sort of things can be done by an group of 7 - 9 people far
> easier than a mailing list of 200.

  Assembly's are not supposed to be easy.

>  And with a more shared workload
> than on 1 or 2 people only.  Everything would still come back to the
> GA for endorsement but in an easily debatable form.

  Most assembly members may not prefer being spoon fed a
"Debatable Form" in which they had no active part in building...

>
>
> If the "Exec" fail to be useful or even worse a hindrance the members
> can be replaced or even the thing dropped as an experiment.

  Not very efficient way of getting things done IMHO...  But than
Assembly's are not suppose to be clean, they aren't.  The are messy.
However and group of "Exec's" usually only make a mess even messier
in most instances that I have been associated with, but not all...

>
>
> However currently as a GA we are incredibly dysfunctional and upon
> reflection the idea of an accountable organising cmte/exec might be
> useful to improve our output.  I believe it is certainly worth
> considering.

  It is being considered now.  Debated here and now.  And from what
I have seen thus far, Dereks suggestion is no being well received...

>
>
> 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

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 #537
************************