Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #545
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, June 16 2001           Volume 01 : Number 545

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

Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:34:09 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: ASO + PSO = TSO  Technical Supporting Organisation

> I much prefer a three-way split between supply, demand and technical
> infrastructure (such as ISPs and telcos).  That's natural and works pretty
> well in Australia.

Patrick,
I'm sure many people agree with you, but it's difficult for me to visualize.
May I suggest we agree a visual format to present ideas for structural
change, then we can compare like with like. It seems your ideas would fit
with a revised version of the Draft Proposal I posted earlier.
Would you be willing to work with that?

Regards,
Joanna

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 14:40:37 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Also - Re: DNSO GA Chair Employed by Register.com?

Hello Andy,

on 6/15/01 1:29 PM, Andy Gardner at [email-masked] wrote:

> While I don't have a problem with a GA official having an association with
> SOME Registrars, I DO have a problem if they are involved with
> Register.com, as it is a domain warehouser, and actively attempts to
> prevent the transfer of names away from itself.

A while ago, I asked Danny to give me his word that he would declare
anything and everything of monetary value, or in kind, that he may be
offered in support of his activities in the DNSO, or as an incentive,
whether from his employer, or any other entity. He agreed.

While I do not agree with everything he says and does, I have no reason to
doubt his word or his integrity, and there is no doubt in my mind that his
behaviour in all ethical matters has been impeccable.

Of course, if the GA Chair position was remunerated, as it should be, no
doubts of this kind could arise, but in the alternative, this is a matter of
trust. Danny is doing the best that he can, with his own funds and has my
100% support in his position as GA Chair. That's more than I could say for
others here. 

Regards,
Joanna 

p.s. I don't work for Register.com or any other company that earns its
living from the internet.    

- --
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 14:49:12 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ASO + PSO = TSO  Technical Supporting Organisation

I would suggest that ISP and connectivitity providers are a BIG economic
and political force. The technical part is minor.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Patrick
Corliss
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 11:40 AM
To: Joanna Lane
Cc: [ga]
Subject: [ga] ASO + PSO = TSO Technical Supporting Organisation

On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 01:57:25 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:

Hi Joanna

On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 01:18:32 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> The argument to that is that there is a fundamental conflict of
interest
> for the ccTLDSO to represent both themselves and their client. If the
> ccTLDs represent 244 countries and each has 1 vote on an issue, how
> many votes do registrants have? The balance of power has to be created
> by a separate SO for registrants, so that the ccTLDSO vote and the
> RegistrantSO is commensurate, one vote each. I would like to hear from
> the ccTLDs on this issue.

I much prefer a three-way split between supply, demand and technical
infrastructure (such as ISPs and telcos).  That's natural and works
pretty
well in Australia.

On the "supply" side you have Registries, joint Registry-Registrars,
Registrars and Registration Service Providers (such as OpenSRS
reselleres).
On the "demand" side you have business, non-commercial and individuals.

In my case I am a domain name owner with domains in both gTLDs and
ccTLDs.  I cannot see that I need to have two voices to reflect my two
different views.  However, at the moment, the balance of power is
strongly
tilted towards supply.  This needs to be redressed.

The problem is seen both in the current SOs where the DNSO plays a
subordinate role and in the 7 categories of constituencies included in
the
constituency setup.  In fact the whole structure makes very little sense
from a purely logical viewpoint.

Why could we not combine the Address Supporting Organisation and the
Protocol Supporting Organisation into a single Technical Supporting
Organisation ("TSO")?  There is no reason for ISPs and connectivity
providers to be even a constituency in the DNSO as they are more
properly
positioned in the TSO.

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: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 23:12:46 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WHOIS survey starts...

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]

DNSO GA Members

Please see http://www.icann.org/dnso/whois-survey-en-10jun01.htm

As you are aware the DNSO NC is conducting a fact-finding mission on
some of the WHOIS issues. Please participate and give us your thoughts.
Other languages will be available soon. The survey is not a "vote" 
so a substantive response (thought through comments) will be well 
received. Comment period is open until 31st July 2001.

DNSO Secreatariat
- --
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 14:35:33 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Also - Re: DNSO GA Chair Employed by Register.com?

Hello Joanna,

For what it is worth, I fully agree.  Having done some checking of my
own into his relationship with Register.com when it was first
mentioned prior to the election, I see no issue with this.  While I
may disagree with Danny on many things, and am very critical of what I
see as a complete lack of leadership from him since becoming Chair,
any accusation that he is acting in conflict because of his
employment, or that he has been hiding any potential conflict, are
baseless.

Also, I fully agree with Andy's comments about Register.com and their
policies as well.  This company's actions and policies are
anticompetitive and harmful to registrants.  NSI is painted with the
same brush.

The only consolation is that Register.com is quickly losing ground in
the domain registration numbers to other more progressive registrars.

Friday, June 15, 2001, 11:40:37 AM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> Hello Andy,

> on 6/15/01 1:29 PM, Andy Gardner at [email-masked] wrote:

>> While I don't have a problem with a GA official having an association with
>> SOME Registrars, I DO have a problem if they are involved with
>> Register.com, as it is a domain warehouser, and actively attempts to
>> prevent the transfer of names away from itself.

> A while ago, I asked Danny to give me his word that he would declare
> anything and everything of monetary value, or in kind, that he may be
> offered in support of his activities in the DNSO, or as an incentive,
> whether from his employer, or any other entity. He agreed.

> While I do not agree with everything he says and does, I have no reason to
> doubt his word or his integrity, and there is no doubt in my mind that his
> behaviour in all ethical matters has been impeccable.

> Of course, if the GA Chair position was remunerated, as it should be, no
> doubts of this kind could arise, but in the alternative, this is a matter of
> trust. Danny is doing the best that he can, with his own funds and has my
> 100% support in his position as GA Chair. That's more than I could say for
> others here. 

> Regards,
> Joanna 

> p.s. I don't work for Register.com or any other company that earns its
> living from the internet.    

> --
> 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: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:07:33 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Also - Re: DNSO GA Chair Employed by Register.com?

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 07:17:53 -0700, Derek wrote:

>Another point is that Danny did mention his association with Register.com in
>a post to the GA forum.  I was not aware of the post until now.
>http://dnso.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc01/msg00003.html

Danny declared his relationship with register.com when he was
nominated as is appropriate.  While personally I had not noticed that
myself it is only my fault for not reading his bio statement more
closely, not his.

Incidentally even if I had known it wouldn't have changed how I voted.

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, 15 Jun 2001 20:09:51 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] let's try to see this constructively... and not over rea ct ... 

         I'm going to post one more message in this thread, and then I'll 
stop, although I have the disquieting feeling that I'm failing to 
communicate what seems to me to be a simple point.

         [1] I think that people should respond to the survey.  They should 
do so without regard to whether the survey is well- or badly-designed, 
because this is the only survey on the table, and its results will likely 
be part of the ICANN policy process.

         [2] I think that people should do whatever they can, within the 
four corners of the survey, to communicate their views, including using the 
narrative boxes to the extent they can.  (Alternatively, I know one person 
who wrote a narrative statement and sent it in *instead* of the survey.)

         [3] None of this renders it off-limits to point out that the 
survey is slanted, and the existence of narrative questions doesn't negate 
the problem.  If I were to receive a multiple-choice survey in which the 
first question asked whether the President/Prime Minister's performance was 
(a) outstanding; or (b) above average, and gave no other choices, than the 
fact that question 20 allowed me to insert narrative comments would not 
negate the bias.  Indeed, if I were to receive a multiple-choice survey in 
which a question asked whether the President/Prime Minister's performance 
was (a) outstanding; (b) above average; or (c) [fill in the blank], the 
fact that respondents could write in answers wouldn't negate the bias, 
because we'd still have the problem that the question makes it easier to 
give some answers than others.  I described one slanted question (although 
not the only one) in the whois survey earlier in this thread; anyone who 
wants to read about it can scroll down.

Jon

At 11:00 PM 6/14/2001 -0400, 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?

>-----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: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:13:00 +0800
From: "erica" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ASO + PSO = TSO  Technical Supporting Organisation

>
Patrick said:
 > I much prefer a three-way split between supply, demand and technical
> > infrastructure (such as ISPs and telcos).  That's natural and works
pretty
> > well in Australia.

I'm not sure where this works in Australia, but in my experience the
technical is generally seen as part of the supply side.  Demand side
identifies the outcomes required or needed, but the ways and means of
achieving  outcomes are the responsibility of supply side.

erica

erica

>
> 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
>

- --
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 20:35:08 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Clarification] DNSO GA Chair Employed by Register.com?

YJ and all assembly members,

  I believe what Derek is eluding to here is that he believes, as I understand
it, that Danny in Stockholm was not exactly straight forward with Derek
with respect to his interest in the DNSO GA and his current employment
situation.  As such, I can understand Derek's dismay and concern.

  None of this is to say that Danny is not a good or adequate
Chair of the DNSO GA.  I think he is personally.

YJ Park wrote:

> Derek,
>
> I have known him since WG-Review process.
>
> We once held a teleconference on January 23 or so.
> When we were waiting more people to join the teleconference,
> he told attendees he was working at Register.com especially at night.
>
> > I have posted several messages in support of Danny following my meeting
> him
> > in Stockholm because I believed his participation in the ICANN process was
> a
> > nobel effort.  I don't know what to think about the GA Chair now or his
> > motives.
>
> Whose effort is noble and whose not?
>
> Thanks,
> YJ
>
> --
> 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 22:37:24 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: ASO + PSO = TSO  Technical Supporting Organisation

Hello erica,

Friday, June 15, 2001, 8:13:00 PM, erica wrote:

>>
> Patrick said:
>  > I much prefer a three-way split between supply, demand and technical
>> > infrastructure (such as ISPs and telcos).  That's natural and works
> pretty
>> > well in Australia.

> I'm not sure where this works in Australia, but in my experience the
> technical is generally seen as part of the supply side.  Demand side
> identifies the outcomes required or needed, but the ways and means of
> achieving  outcomes are the responsibility of supply side.

Perhaps in most instances, but in this case, the technical are
distinctly different and have a different set of concerns and issues.
The IETF for instance doesn't really fit the profile of a supplier or
a consumer, nor would it share the same set of concerns as either of
those.

- -- 
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 23:54:14 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] let's try to see this constructively... and not over rea ct ...

On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 08:09:51PM -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>          I'm going to post one more message in this thread, and then I'll 
> stop, although I have the disquieting feeling that I'm failing to 
> communicate what seems to me to be a simple point.

To me it appears that you are failing to communicate because you
apparently aren't aware of the strong negative bias you exhibit in the 
process. 

[...]

>          [2] I think that people should do whatever they can, within the 
> four corners of the survey, to communicate their views, including using the 
> narrative boxes to the extent they can.  (Alternatively, I know one person 
> who wrote a narrative statement and sent it in *instead* of the survey.)

An option that has always been available, even before the survey was 
announced....

> [3] None of this renders it off-limits to point out that the 
> survey is slanted, and the existence of narrative questions doesn't negate 
> the problem.  If I were to receive a multiple-choice survey in which the 
> first question asked whether the President/Prime Minister's performance was 
> (a) outstanding; or (b) above average, and gave no other choices, than the 
> fact that question 20 allowed me to insert narrative comments would not 
> negate the bias.

If there were such questions, then you might have a point.  But 
Froomkin's contorted analysis is a very far cry from what you describe 
above. 

> >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.

This survey is statistically invalid no matter how the questions are
worded.  It is BORN statistically invalid, because there is no
meaningful definition of the sample involved.  This is a survey SEEKING
IDEAS; it is not a surrogate vote. 

> >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.

The question isn't whether the information is valuable in the abstract;
the question is whether the information is valuable to *you*, the person
filling out the survey, in your use of whois.  The semantic contortions
you and Froomkin go through here are far more indicative of a bias
towards negative criticism than it is of a bias in the survey. 

I am not trying to claim that the survey is perfect -- it *obviously*
isn't perfect.  But perfection is simply not required for the task at 
hand.

- -- 
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: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 03:21:52 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: What are the "Best-of-Breed" TLDs ?

Jim and all assembly members,

Jim Fleming wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> >
> >   Very true.  In fact, New.net is not the "Best of Bread" of Competitive
> > and Inclusive Root and registry structures, not to mention neither is
> > SRS or RRp respective to registration systems and Registry DB's
>
> -------
>
> In your opinion....
>
> What are the "Best-of-Breed" TLDs ?

  Good question.  I really don't know.  I doubt that it is known yet.
I am not even sure how this could be evaluated in a meaningful way.
My comment above really isn't about TLD's but methods of
resolving them and the DNS environment in which they can, will
or are being used or otherwise accessed.

>
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html
>
> Note: It might be best to stick with TLDs that "exist", as opposed
> to those people have been talking about for 5 or more years. How
> can one compare the operations, stability, etc. of something that
> works, with something on paper ?

  This is also a good question that it seems ICANN has trouble
with addressing adequately if at all.

> Also, many of the so-called
> ccTLDs could be "Best-of-Breed" and should not be left out.
> Some of them clearly do not want the stigma of being a ccTLD.

  Agreed.

>
>
> Jim Fleming
> 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

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: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 05:03:46 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version

WXW and all,

  Your tone and indication in your comments below is awful close
to justifying that .WEB and IOD may get consideration or entry
into the USG/Legacy roots in the next round.  ????

  Yet IOD does run it's own registry.  It is competitive, but not
inclusive.
It is therefore by any reasonable definition, and "Alt.Root"....

  As such, inclusion of .WEB would be setting a precedent...

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello NameCritic,
>
> Saturday, June 16, 2001, 1:38:09 AM, NameCritic wrote:
> > Hmmm. Since in an earlier email you stated you do not believe that .web has
> > any claim to existance in the OTAR, I can't help but ask then, minus that
> > supposed IANA thing you disagree with for dot web, what exactly makes these
> > two so different?
>
> I'm saying that I do not believe the IANA issue to be sufficient cause
> to give them some recognition.
>
> BUT, I am saying that the IANA issue IS sufficiently in conflict to
> make IOD's situation absolutely unique WRT to alt.roots, and to use
> the deference IOD received on .web as a basis for claiming other
> alt.root TLDs should receive deference is absurd.
>
> While I don't agree with the decision to give them the deference, the
> did get it.  However, to say that the same reasoning for IOD's
> deference applies to other alt.root TLDs is faulty.
>
> IOD didn't start .web intending it to be in the alt.roots (at least
> that's their side of it, and the claim is a plausible one).  Obviously
> Cerf felt the issues were sufficiently murky that a deference should
> be given.
>
> As I said, I've noticed IOD distancing itself from the alt.root
> community, in a big way.  While I have no inside information, I'n
> guessing that this is intentional on their part, to continue to draw
> focus to the fact that their claim to .web is based on an entirely
> different principle than the alt.root TLD operators base their claims
> on.
>
> ICANN can grant a deference to IOD without setting a precedent for how
> it handles alt.root TLDs.
>
> > Can you clarify this for us William? Does 2 + 2 = 5?
>
> Only when you take my words out of context, Chris.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
> --
> 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

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: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:09:07 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version

Dear Stuart,
Could we get real? To do that I will simple daily comon words.

- -

One, you describe the things from the USG documents perspective instead of 
from a logical analysis. However very will drafted (and not that much 
respected by the iCANN), the USG documents are only dealing with the USG 
DNS application. As if you were explaining me how Words works and telling 
me that all the files are to be signed "Stuart Lynn".

- -

Two, you are confused about the words "single authoritative". You want to 
be the single authoritative user on your  Words program: everyone does. 
This means that I cannot use your Words and you cannot use mine. This does 
not mean that you got the property of Words sources from Bill Gates. This 
is the usual misunderstanding of customers who believe they purchased the 
source when they got a usage right. I am the single authoritative boss on 
my machine: "single authoritative root" is a concept as obvious as a ship 
has a single authoritative captain. Only kids believe they command the 
world's fleet.

At TLD Level, from historical right (first come, first serve) the legacy 
TLDs (.com, .org, ..) are acknowledged by everyone as the TLDs run by the 
USG. No one is contesting that. As I do not sign my letters "Stuart Lynn". 
This means that when running the public DNS software no one will collide 
with these TLDs. From the same historical right (first come, first serve) 
many others have their own TLDs they use with the same public DNS software. 
Being realistic and polite they try to avoid collisions and when collisions 
happen by ignorance they try to resolve the conflict by mutual agreement. 
Among polite and decent grown people it works well. Now teenager iCANN 
wants to show it exists in creating collisions on purpose. This is childish 
and impolite. It is impolite for obvious reasons as if you started signing 
"Jefsey Morfin", it is childish as it gives all the others teenagers the 
idea that colliding the iCANN TLD is the next game in town. And we start 
seeing many around: New.net is only a nice well behaved one.

- -

Three: at root level you get confused the most simple words. Nothing mythic 
or mystic about a root. It is only a TLD name-server map or directory. 
Anyone may publish a root showing where TLDs are managed. Usually when 
someone asks me a direction in the street, I try to respond at my best. My 
mother taught me that: this is courtesy she said. Most of the roots do the 
same as much as they can: who does not want to help his neigbhors? Now 
teenager iCANN wants also to be discourteous and not to tell people where 
are the zone servers if they do not pay him a TAF (TLD application fee in 
iCANNese - a marijuana joint in French). He even wants to play "petit chef" 
(e-napoleon) claiming he owns and runs the show. Even girls are not 
impressed: they know it is only because he is not grown enough and does not 
know anything outside his block.

- -

Again, Stuart, get real, please. Milton has a fair pro-iCANN balanced 
approach which may be used as a basis for talks, mutual education, doctrine 
study, policy research, compromise or even consensus uncovering. We are not 
religious: we run businesses and social services. Many other things to do 
than this.

iCANN is a cosy secretariat for registering TLDs, allocating IP addresses 
and Port numbers. It is a convenient place to locate additional services 
like Registrar qualification, international gatherings organization, common 
ML management, international ccTLD relations and probably many other net 
keeping oriented nice functions helping everyone, keeping his Staff and BoD 
happy. iCANN is so few DNS oriented that it has not hired its technical 
manager yet and does not plan to do it in a near future if I look at its site.

Why to spoil all that? Just because of Mike Roberts' fancy to charge $ 
50.000 a $ 20 task? Everyone was happy with the iCANN before that. Let 
forget it.

- -

Oh! yes: I forgot. Jon Postel needed a secretary to register his DNs and 
hired NanSi. He was also bored by collecting money so he asked NanSI to do 
it too. Then he hired others: a TLD is just a secretary mark (as on the 
letters) to know who from the pool entered it.

Now you want to hire some other secretaries and you miss Words licences. 
Also NanSi wants Jon's legacy... very usual for a favorite and she call on 
"authorities". I am surprised your are impressed: I hope your wife handles 
better her disputes with her grocer, or your got yourself a problem.

Yours are secretary pool management problems. The foreign secretaries want 
to form a second pool, Tuckows secretary starts being jealous, external 
secretaries are typing the letters yours expected to type, China secretary 
went on strike, your last policy statement made you the talk of the town 
instead of addressing the discontent, helpers deteriorate the situation. 
This is a very usual management case: no need to call on the Army, the USG 
and the rest of the World.

Get them together. Clean the situation. Tell them "there are no problems 
only challenges", tell them they are "the winning TLDs for the new 
millenium", blabla making them happy... etc.. and protect yourself against 
that  problem in externalizing your secretary pool.

- -

There is a tale about the Frog which took itself for a Bull. It applies to 
NSI, let not apply it to the iCANN.
My suggestion at least.

Jefsey

On 18:17 15/06/01, M. Stuart Lynn said:
>It seems, Milton, that academe has arrived at a new standard since I left 
>two years ago. Anyone who agrees with you is "honest" and anyone who 
>disagrees is not ;-). Well, well!
>
>The basis for the statement that ICANN's policy is to support a single 
>authoritative root is extensively articulated in my document and the 
>references clearly cited. The White Paper, the Memorandum of 
>Understanding, and the Articles of Incorporation give clear indication of 
>ICANN's Policy. They are ICANN's charter documents. I suggest you read 
>them again. They are not very hard to understand and their statements with 
>regard to an authoritative single root and to competing roots are quite 
>clear. My statement on ICANN Policy is not unilateral -- it is 
>well-grounded in the community processes that led to the White Paper and 
>to the formation of ICANN.
>
>You may disagree. That's fine. It would make for a dull ICANN if everyone 
>agreed on everything.
>
>And I would encourage you to follow the appropriate processes if you would 
>like to see the current policy changed.
>
>With regards
>Stuart
>
>
>At 6:02 PM -0400 6/14/01, Milton Mueller wrote:
>>Stuart:
>>
>>I would request that you modify your statement to indicate that there
>>currently is NO stated consensus policy on the adoption of TLD
>>assignments by ICANN that are in use in alternate or competing roots.
>>
>>I can prove easily that there is no policy: ICANN has explicitly avoided
>>a conflict in the case of .WEB, and it has created a conflict in the case
>>of .BIZ. Both decisions were off-the-cuff ones made by the Board in
>>November. But there is no documented policy process that would explain
>>why they avoided conflict in one instance and not in another.
>>
>>The White Paper simply does not address the issue. Working Group C
>>did not address it. Nor did the Names Council resolution passing on
>>WGC's recommendation to create new TLDs.
>>
>>In your unilateral policy statement known as the "discussion draft,"
>>you made it clear that you do not like alternate roots. I would ask
>>you to look beyond that, as it is irrelevant to the question I am raising.
>>We must not confuse the question of whether there is a prior
>>policy with the question of WHAT the policy should be. We may agree
>>or disagree on the latter. But the only conclusion an honest person
>>cam come to about the former is that it is a policy question that has
>>not been carefully defined and explored.
>>
>>>>>  "M. Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]> 06/14/01 04:23PM >>>
>>Danny -- I am still receiving final editorial and other clarification
>>suggestions on my paper. I hope to have it complete in about a week
>>or so.
>>
>>Thanks for your interest.
>>
>>Stuart
>>
>>   At 1:48 PM -0400 6/14/01, Danny Younger wrote:
>>>Although the Names Council has decided, "that multiple roots are outside the
>>>scope of the ICANN DNSO", it is within the scope of the General Assembly to
>>  >consider changes in ICANN's domain name policies.
>>  >"The Supporting Organizations shall serve as advisory bodies to the Board,
>>  >with the primary responsibility for developing and recommending 
>> substantive
>>  >policies regarding those matters falling within their specific
>>  >responsibilities."
>>  >Our ICANN President has stated, "We already do have a policy, and we'd 
>> need
>>>to change that policy if we want to operate differently in the future."
>>>Director Abril comments, "Policy changes should go through policy process."
>>>The General Assembly is part of that process.  Should we desire to recommend
>>>any consensus-based changes, we need to begin with a full understanding of
>>>the current policy.
>>>We are however, at the moment hampered by the fact that we are still
>>>awaiting the revised version of our current policy draft.   Lynn:  "Will
>>>continue to take comments on single root paper and post a revised version.
>>>Board consensus."
>>>On behalf of the participants to this list, I will ask our President to post
>>>this revised version as soon as possible, so that the General assembly may
>>  >better be positioned to put forward policy recommendations in a timely
>>  >manner.
>>
>>--
>>
>>__________________
>>Stuart Lynn
>>President and CEO
>>ICANN
>>4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
>>Marina del Rey, CA 90292
>>Tel: 310-823-9358
>>Fax: 310-823-8649
>>Email: [email-masked]
>>--
>>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
>
>--
>
>__________________
>Stuart Lynn
>President and CEO
>ICANN
>4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
>Marina del Rey, CA 90292
>Tel: 310-823-9358
>Fax: 310-823-8649
>Email: [email-masked]
>--
>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 #545
************************