Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #542
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, June 15 2001            Volume 01 : Number 542

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

Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:34:04 -0400
From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha."

Joanna Lane writes:  "Danny, as you are on the Whois Committee, perhaps you
could confirm that efforts will be made to contact some of these. Here's a
short list from the EPIC Online Guide to Privacy Resources:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/privacy_resources_faq.html

Dear Joanna,

About two months ago, I forwarded a number of the epic.org URLS to Paul
Kane, Chair of the WHOIS committee.  I can confirm that as we move past the
survey input phase, additional outreach activities will be pursued.

Best regards,
Danny

- --
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 21:45:02 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha."

David and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Michael Froomkin wrote:
> > I meant a professional with experience in survey design, not someone paid by
> > ICANN to do whatever it is ICANN pays them to do.  It goes without saying that
> > no one at ICANN, or the NC, has this somewhat specialist skill (although I
> would
> > not be surprised to find it in the GA somewhere).
>
> As it so happens one of the tasks I had when working for the NZ Prime Minister
> was design, conduct and analysis of surveys and polls.  Did over 100 of them.
>
> I would be happy to assist ICANN or the DNSO in this area in future should they
> want such assistance :-)

  Of course your volunteering?  >;)

  Possibly the DNSO GA should hire a professional agency that does
surveys.  We [INEGroup] employ three for our purposes.  It seems
reasonable to consider that the DNSO GA should do it's own independent
survey's....

>
>
> DPF
>
> --
> 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, 14 Jun 2001 23:00:03 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] let's try to see this constructively... and not over rea ct ... 

Jonathan, and Michael and others...

Why not use the narrative questions to include other perspectives that you
think aren't included, as informational points?
- -----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 9:44 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; 'Michael Froomkin'; 'Danny Younger'
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [ga] let's try to see this constructively... and not over
react ... 

         I think you miss Michael's point, Marilyn.  He's not saying that 
the study is statistically invalid because it allows for narrative 
responses.  He's saying that it's invalid because it's systematically 
biased in favor of one set of results.  Thus, for example, he mentions 
Question 9, which asks whether each whois data element is "essential," 
"desirable" or "valueless."  Problem is, almost any information has 
value.  Nobody would say that a registrant's postal address, say, is 
"valueless" -- but the survey gives no opportunity to say that it is 
nonetheless unnecessary, or that the privacy costs associated with 
including it outweigh that value.  Rather, the respondent's only other 
choices are that the information is either "essential" or 
"desirable."  That's a slanted question.

         I think that everyone should fill out the survey, notwithstanding 
its bias, because -- like it or not -- the responses this survey generates 
will help shape ICANN action.  But that doesn't mean that one shouldn't 
point out the survey's rather unfortunate flaws.

Jon

At 09:12 PM 6/14/2001 -0400, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

>I agree with Danny's response. In my view, always easy to be critical;
>better to be constructive.
>
>I regret that Michael has expressed only concerns. Isn't the survey  not to
>determine an outcome in itself, but to try to gather information?
>Obviously, using narrative responses is not going to result in a
>statistically valid study; and given the method of distribution, it isn't a
>"sample", but that wasn't and isn't the point, I would say.
>
>I still encourage everyone who uses WHOIS to respond and to be
constructive.
>
>I believe that even sociologists sometimes do non-statistical "field
>research"....
>
>
>
>Marilyn
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Froomkin [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 7:48 PM
>To: Danny Younger
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] Re: "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha."
>
>
>I meant a professional with experience in survey design, not someone paid
by
>ICANN to do whatever it is ICANN pays them to do.  It goes without saying
>that
>no one at ICANN, or the NC, has this somewhat specialist skill (although I
>would
>not be surprised to find it in the GA somewhere).  No blame attaches for
>this,
>as there is no reason we should expect them to--it's a technical body
>(right?),
>not a social science research unit.  But nor should we place much credence
>in
>the results, whoever designed it.
>
>I don't see the value of a lot of energy being used to produce something
>that
>cannot be relied on.   The lesson is: if you are going to do a survey, run
>it by
>someone who designs them for a living.   Someone in a sociology department
>or a
>psychology department of a university who does empirical work if you can't
>get a
>professional pollster.
>
>In fact, given the bias of the design, the greater the 'outreach' for this
>survey, the greater the damage.
>
>[I'll almost certainly be offline from now until Tuesday due to travel.]
>
>Danny Younger wrote:
>
> > With regard to the WHOIS survey, Michael Froomkin writes:  "I wish
whoever
> > wrote this had consulted a professional."
> >
> > Actually, we are probably quite lucky that the Names Council's WHOIS
> > committee (of which I am also a member) wrestled this project away from
>the
> > ICANN staff which some time ago had formed its own WHOIS Committee
> > http://www.icann.org/committees/whois/.  Yes, it might have been more
> > professional had the ICANN staff devoted their full-time professional
>skills
> > to it, but I for one am quite happy to see the uncompensated volunteer
> > members of the Names Council showing some real initiative and a desire
to
> > address the problems that lay ahead.
> >
> > Whatever this survey may lack in "design", one has to admit there has
been
>a
> > major effort made at outreach, along with a significant effort to
>translate
> > this survey into multiple languages (more soon to be forthcoming).
Please
> > bear in mind that this is only step one in a much longer process that
will
> > fully involve the General Assembly.    Let's not go overboard with the
> > criticism when it is clear that we are making forward progress.
> >
> > --
> > 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
>--
>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, 14 Jun 2001 23:00:44 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha."

on 6/14/01 10:34 PM, Danny Younger at [email-masked] wrote:

> Joanna Lane writes:  "Danny, as you are on the Whois Committee, perhaps you
> could confirm that efforts will be made to contact some of these. Here's a
> short list from the EPIC Online Guide to Privacy Resources:
> http://www.epic.org/privacy/privacy_resources_faq.html
> 
> Dear Joanna,
> 
> About two months ago, I forwarded a number of the epic.org URLS to Paul
> Kane, Chair of the WHOIS committee.  I can confirm that as we move past the
> survey input phase, additional outreach activities will be pursued.
> 
> Best regards,
> Danny

Excellent work! We have a communication problem Huston. Does that mean that
the Whois survey is intended ONLY for members of the DNSO and that members
of the public, privacy organizations, newsgroups etc. including those listed
in my previous post, should NOT fill in the survey (because they will be
consulted in a different fashion at a later date), or what is the Whois
Committee plan exactly?

Regards,
Joanna 

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

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

Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 03:50:14 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] let's try to see this constructively... and not over rea

Marilyn Cade wrote: 
> Jonathan, and Michael and others...
> 
> Why not use the narrative questions to include other perspectives that you
> think aren't included, as informational points?

This can certainly be done by the individuals who think of this but it still 
means that the quantative data would have considerably less value than could 
have been the case.

Instead of having the responses as essential, desirable and valueless it would 
have been better to ask something like :

Please indicate whether for each data element below , you regard its inclusion 
in WHOIS as

1) Critically Important
2) Very Important
3) Moderately Important
4) Somewhat Important
5) Not at all Important

plus an option for Don't Know/No Opinion.

Another way to do it is just ask each data element to be ranked on a scale of 
1 - 10 where 1 is "Essential" and 10 is "Valueless".

Both of the above allow each data element to be given an average score which is 
useful for compararative purposes.

Question 9 as written is not without value.  One can compare the % who mark 
essential for each data element as a rough guide and ignore how the remainder 
is split between desirable and valueless.

As with others I commend ICANN/NC for doing such a survey.  Just a few days ago 
I submitted to the At Large Study Committee that multi-choice type surveys is 
one of the ways in which individuals can be involved in ICANN so it is pleasing 
to see it happen.

Has a notice gone out on icann-announce or dnso-announce alerting people to the 
survey?  Would be a good idea IMO.

DPF

- --
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 21:39:24 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] let's try to see this constructively... and not over rea

On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 03:50:14AM +0000, [email-masked] wrote:
> Marilyn Cade wrote: 
>> Jonathan, and Michael and others...
>> 
>> Why not use the narrative questions to include other perspectives that you
>> think aren't included, as informational points?
> 
>This can certainly be done by the individuals who think of this but it still 
>means that the quantative data would have considerably less value than could 
>have been the case.

In fact, there is very little significance that can be attached to the
quantitiative data.  Right now people are treating the survey as a vote,
and busy trying to stuff the ballot by getting lots of people who think
like they do to fill out the form.  There is essentially no statistical
validity to that as a sampling method. 

> Instead of having the responses as essential, desirable and valueless it would 
> have been better to ask something like :
> 
> Please indicate whether for each data element below , you regard its inclusion 
> in WHOIS as
> 
> 1) Critically Important
> 2) Very Important
> 3) Moderately Important
> 4) Somewhat Important
> 5) Not at all Important
> 
> plus an option for Don't Know/No Opinion.
> 
> Another way to do it is just ask each data element to be ranked on a scale of 
> 1 - 10 where 1 is "Essential" and 10 is "Valueless".
> 
> Both of the above allow each data element to be given an average score which is 
> useful for compararative purposes.

Without a rigorous sampling methodology, such finesse is useless.  A
statement like "67% of those surveyed think that whois is essential" 
would be misleading, at best.

> Question 9 as written is not without value.  One can compare the % who mark 
> essential for each data element as a rough guide and ignore how the remainder 
> is split between desirable and valueless.
> 
> As with others I commend ICANN/NC for doing such a survey.

While I think your emphasis on the numerical aspects is completely
misguided, I also agree that the survey is a very positive development. 
While there is no doubt that it is essentially useless from a quantative
point of view, it remains true that a great deal of useful qualitative
information will come from such a survey.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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, 15 Jun 2001 00:07:07 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] How can you know this ?

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg03224.html

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>

"Right now people are treating the survey as a vote,
and busy trying to stuff the ballot by getting lots of people who think
like they do to fill out the form."
- -------------

How can you know this ?

How do you know why they (whomever they are), are doing what they are doing
?

How do you know how they "think" and if others "think like they do" ?

Where is the evidence, examples, etc. ? URLs ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
BIZ World

- --
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, 15 Jun 2001 00:10:13 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] So - when's the info landrush?

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kirk Fletcher" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 10:47 PM
> Subject: Re: So - when's the info landrush?
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > "landrush" ?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, you know - the next phase in pre-registration...
> >
> > .info doesn't call it "landrush" though, they call it "startup"
> > (all these names are confusing).
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> >
>
>
> I prefer to deal with operational TLDs....
> http://root-dns.org
>
> It is my impression that "pre-registrations" make no sense.
> Many people went through that a few years ago, and ended up with nothing.
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/
> November 16, 2000 Consumer Alert from US Federal Trade Commission: "Domain
> Name Registration Scams"
> http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/domainalrt.htm
>
>
> With respect to .BIZ...
> Are you talking about the "Proof-of-Concept" .BIZ ?
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html
> ...(i.e. the one that uses IPv4)...
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/biz/registry-agmt-appu-11may01.htm
> "Registry Operator shall provide the following reports and related data to
> ICANN for use in its proof of concept evaluation."
>
>
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
> BIZ World
>
> http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
> http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
> http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
>
>

- --
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, 15 Jun 2001 00:58:49 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha."

Danny and all assembly members,

Danny Younger wrote:

> Joanna Lane writes:  "Danny, as you are on the Whois Committee, perhaps you
> could confirm that efforts will be made to contact some of these. Here's a
> short list from the EPIC Online Guide to Privacy Resources:
> http://www.epic.org/privacy/privacy_resources_faq.html
>
> Dear Joanna,
>
> About two months ago, I forwarded a number of the epic.org URLS to Paul
> Kane, Chair of the WHOIS committee.  I can confirm that as we move past the
> survey input phase, additional outreach activities will be pursued.

  This is fine Danny.  But what about before we move past the survey input
phase.  Have any of the EFF listed or other privacy groups which Joanna
listed been ask or informed about the WHOIS survey?  If not, why not?
After the fact isn't good enough, Danny.

  I realize that you are an employee of Register.com and this may be a touchy
issue
with you superiors and therefore some pressure could be applied to you.  And
as such I can understand you response to Joanna, above.

>
>
> Best regards,
> Danny
>
> --
> 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, 15 Jun 2001 01:01:44 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] let's try to see this constructively... and not over rea ct ...

Marilyn and all assembly members,

  Good point Merilyn, and I amongst some of our members did just
as you suggest.  However Jonathan's comments are still strong points
none the less.

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Jonathan, and Michael and others...
>
> Why not use the narrative questions to include other perspectives that you
> think aren't included, as informational points?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 9:44 PM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; 'Michael Froomkin'; 'Danny Younger'
> Cc: [email-masked]'
> Subject: Re: [ga] let's try to see this constructively... and not over
> react ...
>
>          I think you miss Michael's point, Marilyn.  He's not saying that
> the study is statistically invalid because it allows for narrative
> responses.  He's saying that it's invalid because it's systematically
> biased in favor of one set of results.  Thus, for example, he mentions
> Question 9, which asks whether each whois data element is "essential,"
> "desirable" or "valueless."  Problem is, almost any information has
> value.  Nobody would say that a registrant's postal address, say, is
> "valueless" -- but the survey gives no opportunity to say that it is
> nonetheless unnecessary, or that the privacy costs associated with
> including it outweigh that value.  Rather, the respondent's only other
> choices are that the information is either "essential" or
> "desirable."  That's a slanted question.
>
>          I think that everyone should fill out the survey, notwithstanding
> its bias, because -- like it or not -- the responses this survey generates
> will help shape ICANN action.  But that doesn't mean that one shouldn't
> point out the survey's rather unfortunate flaws.
>
> Jon
>
> At 09:12 PM 6/14/2001 -0400, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
> >I agree with Danny's response. In my view, always easy to be critical;
> >better to be constructive.
> >
> >I regret that Michael has expressed only concerns. Isn't the survey  not to
> >determine an outcome in itself, but to try to gather information?
> >Obviously, using narrative responses is not going to result in a
> >statistically valid study; and given the method of distribution, it isn't a
> >"sample", but that wasn't and isn't the point, I would say.
> >
> >I still encourage everyone who uses WHOIS to respond and to be
> constructive.
> >
> >I believe that even sociologists sometimes do non-statistical "field
> >research"....
> >
> >
> >
> >Marilyn
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Michael Froomkin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 7:48 PM
> >To: Danny Younger
> >Cc: [email-masked]
> >Subject: Re: [ga] Re: "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha."
> >
> >
> >I meant a professional with experience in survey design, not someone paid
> by
> >ICANN to do whatever it is ICANN pays them to do.  It goes without saying
> >that
> >no one at ICANN, or the NC, has this somewhat specialist skill (although I
> >would
> >not be surprised to find it in the GA somewhere).  No blame attaches for
> >this,
> >as there is no reason we should expect them to--it's a technical body
> >(right?),
> >not a social science research unit.  But nor should we place much credence
> >in
> >the results, whoever designed it.
> >
> >I don't see the value of a lot of energy being used to produce something
> >that
> >cannot be relied on.   The lesson is: if you are going to do a survey, run
> >it by
> >someone who designs them for a living.   Someone in a sociology department
> >or a
> >psychology department of a university who does empirical work if you can't
> >get a
> >professional pollster.
> >
> >In fact, given the bias of the design, the greater the 'outreach' for this
> >survey, the greater the damage.
> >
> >[I'll almost certainly be offline from now until Tuesday due to travel.]
> >
> >Danny Younger wrote:
> >
> > > With regard to the WHOIS survey, Michael Froomkin writes:  "I wish
> whoever
> > > wrote this had consulted a professional."
> > >
> > > Actually, we are probably quite lucky that the Names Council's WHOIS
> > > committee (of which I am also a member) wrestled this project away from
> >the
> > > ICANN staff which some time ago had formed its own WHOIS Committee
> > > http://www.icann.org/committees/whois/.  Yes, it might have been more
> > > professional had the ICANN staff devoted their full-time professional
> >skills
> > > to it, but I for one am quite happy to see the uncompensated volunteer
> > > members of the Names Council showing some real initiative and a desire
> to
> > > address the problems that lay ahead.
> > >
> > > Whatever this survey may lack in "design", one has to admit there has
> been
> >a
> > > major effort made at outreach, along with a significant effort to
> >translate
> > > this survey into multiple languages (more soon to be forthcoming).
> Please
> > > bear in mind that this is only step one in a much longer process that
> will
> > > fully involve the General Assembly.    Let's not go overboard with the
> > > criticism when it is clear that we are making forward progress.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >--
> >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

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, 14 Jun 2001 23:29:57 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] <sigh>

Hello Patrick,

Thursday, June 14, 2001, 5:33:32 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> I just wonder what motivates a few people to deliberately wreck any
> constructive proposal that they, personally, happen not to agree with.

Your point might be valid if in fact those proposals had any
substantive support.

They don't appear to.

- -- 
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: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 02:30:51 -0400
From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: "They're Coming To Take Me Away. Ha Ha." 

Jeff Williams writes:  "This is fine Danny.  But what about before we move
past the survey input phase.  Have any of the EFF listed or other privacy
groups which Joanna listed been ask or informed about the WHOIS survey?  If
not, why not?  After the fact isn't good enough, Danny.
I realize that you are an employee of Register.com and this may be a touchy
issue with you superiors and therefore some pressure could be applied to
you.  And as such I can understand you response to Joanna, above."

Jeff, with all due respect, many of the privacy groups to which you refer
were participants in Stockholm, and many are actively involved within the
non-commercial constituency (that keeps abreast of the issues rather well).
This survey was announced in Stockholm and has been posted twice as new and
noteworthy on the www.icann.org site.  There have been discussions about
this survey during the last three Names Council teleconferences and at the
prior session in Melbourne.  There are also ample comments regarding the
work of this committee on the Names Council lists dating back to November,
as well as comments on the Registrars list, the Business Constituency List
and the Non-Com List.  There has been an icann-announce message as well.
The survey/comment period is open until July 31, sufficient time for you to
assist in outreach activities.  Perhaps if you sent a note to your 118,000
members...

I have no idea why you might think this to be a touchy issue for me, nor any
idea of why my employment is a factor in these discussions.

- --
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, 15 Jun 2001 02:28:10 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Proposal for Structural Change (Resolution 1.29)

PROPOSAL TO RESTRUCTURE ICANN SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS

1.0 CONSUMER SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (CSO)
Comprising the following groups who qualify by virtue of being users
affected by internet services, rather than providers of those services:-

1.1 Business Community/ Intellectual Property Interests (BC/IP)
1.2 Small Business Community (SME)
1.3 Individual Domain Name Registrants (IDNH)
1.4 End Users (currently represented by At Large)
1.5 Non-commercial Domain Name Registrants (NCDNH)
1.6 Public Interest Organizations

2.0 TECHNICAL SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (TSO)
Comprising the following groups who qualify by virtue of being providers of
internet services, rather than consumers of those services:-

2.1 Registrars
2.2 Registries
2.3 ISPs
2.4 RIRs
2.5 Telecom Industry

3.0 ADDRESS AND PROTOCOL SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (APSO)
Comprising the existing APO and PSO

__________________________________________________________________

It is proposed that each of the three supporting organizations elect a
number of representatives to attend a General Assembly/ Committee, where
draft Position Papers, prepared by each of the various groups, would be
submitted for cross-SO dialogue, and consensus to be uncovered.

After differences in opinion had been hammered out, representatives would
then return ammended Position Papers to their respective Supporting
Organization for ratification.

Once agreed, Policy Recommendations would then be forwarded to the ICANN
Board of Directors.

______________________________________________________________________

Draft 1. Prepared by Joanna Lane. 14 June 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: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 00:19:22 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for Structural Change (Resolution 1.29)

Hello Joanna,

We need to elaborate on this a bit.

Currently the DNSO, ASO and PSO each appoint 3 board directors, for a
total of 9.

The At Large is supposed to elect 9 board directors.

What would the make up of the board look like under your proposal (in
other words a section needs to be added to your proposal to address
this).

I see no way to do it evenly.

Perhaps 2 each from the SO's (comprising 8), and then we need a
solution for electing the outstanding director.

Thursday, June 14, 2001, 11:28:10 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> PROPOSAL TO RESTRUCTURE ICANN SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS

> 1.0 CONSUMER SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (CSO)
> Comprising the following groups who qualify by virtue of being users
> affected by internet services, rather than providers of those services:-

> 1.1 Business Community/ Intellectual Property Interests (BC/IP)
> 1.2 Small Business Community (SME)
> 1.3 Individual Domain Name Registrants (IDNH)
> 1.4 End Users (currently represented by At Large)
> 1.5 Non-commercial Domain Name Registrants (NCDNH)
> 1.6 Public Interest Organizations

> 2.0 TECHNICAL SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (TSO)
> Comprising the following groups who qualify by virtue of being providers of
> internet services, rather than consumers of those services:-

> 2.1 Registrars
> 2.2 Registries
> 2.3 ISPs
> 2.4 RIRs
> 2.5 Telecom Industry

> 3.0 ADDRESS AND PROTOCOL SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (APSO)
> Comprising the existing APO and PSO

> __________________________________________________________________

> It is proposed that each of the three supporting organizations elect a
> number of representatives to attend a General Assembly/ Committee, where
> draft Position Papers, prepared by each of the various groups, would be
> submitted for cross-SO dialogue, and consensus to be uncovered.

> After differences in opinion had been hammered out, representatives would
> then return ammended Position Papers to their respective Supporting
> Organization for ratification.

> Once agreed, Policy Recommendations would then be forwarded to the ICANN
> Board of Directors.

> ______________________________________________________________________

> Draft 1. Prepared by Joanna Lane. 14 June 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

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #542
************************