Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #582
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Monday, July 2 2001             Volume 01 : Number 582

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 00:08:19 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] GA's UDRP Task Force Representative

Dear Elisabeth,

The Names Council has asked the General Assembly to select a candidate for 
the UDRP Task Force.  Please prepare an GA-Announce message detailing the 
voting process whereby we may elect such a representative.   As the Council 
has indicated that it seeks to move ahead rapidly with this Task Force, 
please keep the timeline for this process as short as is reasonably possible.

PS.  Self-nominations are acceptable.

Thank you,
Danny Younger
- --
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: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 23:26:42 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerns & Petition

Danny and all assembly members,

  I agree as do our members with Danny's concerns here.

  Without GA participation directly, any conclusions from such
a "UDRP Task Force" would not be representative...

[email-masked] wrote:

> Philip,
>
> I have a number of concerns regarding the UDRP Task Force that I would like
> to discuss with you:
>
> 1.  The lack of a public comment period --
>
> Our Bylaws state:  "Any reports or recommendations presented to the NC by
> such bodies shall be posted on a web site accessible by the public for public
> review and comment; absent clear justification, which shall be publicly
> stated at the time of any action, the NC shall not act on any report or
> recommendation until a reasonable time for public comment has passed and the
> NC has reviewed and evaluated all public comments received. The NC is
> responsible for ensuring that all responsible views have been heard and
> considered prior to a decision by the NC."
>
> Public comment is more than a response to a questionnaire.  If the Task Force
> will be drafting recommendations, then a public comment period is needed to
> respond to those recommendations.  I see no indication of that in the current
> timeline posted at
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.html
>
> 2.  The lack of a constituency comment period --
>
> Our Bylaws state:  "Following the receipt of a report or recommendation from
> such a body, the NC may accept the report or recommendation for submission to
> the Constituencies for comment and consultation, or return the report or
> recommendation to the body from which it originated for further work."
>
> There does not appear to be a procedure that allows for the constituencies to
> formally comment on the recommendations cited in this timeline either (which
> would be required prior to a vote:  "After the report or recommendation is
> submitted to the Constituencies and the comment period for the Constituencies
> has expired, the NC shall evaluate the comments to determine whether there is
> a basis for a consensus recommendation to the Board."
>
> 3.  The lack of a GA "body" --
>
> Our Bylaws state that the "substantive work of the DNSO" is to be carried out
> by "research or drafting committees, working groups and other bodies of the GA
> ".  A single GA representative is neither a committee, nor a group, nor a
> body of the GA.  Our Bylaws envisioned a structure whereby the "work" gets
> handled by the members of the GA, with "each recognized Constituency...
> invited to participate in each of such bodies."  Only the "management" of
> such groups is the responsibility of the NC.
>
> Your particular approach is denying the General Assembly its full right to
> participate in the consensus-building process as envisioned by the Bylaws.
> There is a reason why we have had working groups drawn from the General
> Assembly membership to tackle each of the major issues that faced us in the
> past... a working group is the best possible bottoms-up mechanism to discover
> consensus, and yet the NC has decided to not establish a UDRP working group
> (although decisions reached by this Task Force may well impact many
> generations to come).  This decision must be revisited.   Many of us still
> recall the aberrant "conclusions" reached by the last Names Council Task
> Force (Review), and we do not seek to see that failure repeated again... a
> working group is essential on an issue of this importance to counterbalance
> the top-down Task Force approach.
>
> 4.  The lack of consensus mechanisms --
>
> A Task Force alone cannot meet the requirements of consensus.  The Terms of
> Reference for this group indicate that "to the extent no consensus can be
> reasonably reached on an item, majority vote shall rule".  Since when is a
> simple majority considered to be consensus in the ICANN process?   Shall ten
> members of this Task Force decide for all the rest of us, especially when
> eleven of these participants may not even be members of the DNSO?   Consensus
> is more than a majority vote... it documents the extent of agreement and
> disagreement among impacted groups, documents the outreach process used to
> seek to achieve adequate representation of the views of groups that are
> likely to be impacted, and documents the nature and intensity of reasoned
> support and opposition to the proposed policy.  -- How do you expect a single
> questionnaire to accomplish all of the above?
>
> 5.  The lack of open processes --
>
> The General Assembly has a large number of members with expertise in the UDRP
> topic and qualified to participate in such discussions; we even have our own
> UDRP mailing list devoted to this subject.  It is not appropriate that these
> interested members be denied the opportunity to formally participate.  Such a
> decision would run counter to the principles of ICANN which call for fair and
> open processes.  A process is not open if it is closed to the bulk of our
> membership.   This issue requires nothing less than a full working group, and
> Working Group D has already established all the necessary policies and
> procedures to satisfy the requirements of the Council.
>
> 6.  Petition --
>
> Further, whereas the Names Council has previously voted to accept the
> recommendations of Working Group D, and whereas such recommendations allow
> for any member of the GA to petition the NC for the formation of a working
> group, I am now formally presenting you and the Names Council with this
> petition to create a UDRP working group to act in conjunction with the UDRP
> Task Force.
>
> The General Assembly appreciates being asked to submit a candidate to the NC
> UDRP Task Force, but any action which contemplates revisions to the UDRP must
> involve a full General Assembly working group as well.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger
>
>

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: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 22:10:14 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerns & Petition

Way to go, Danny.  The blatant disregard of its own rules by ICANN,
although it never hesitates to cite those rules when they happen to fit
its latest move, has gone on long enough. The NC in particular needs
to be called to account.

I happen to disagree with your premise that a working group is the "best
way" to get something done, but that's neither here nor there.  When an
issue calls for a working group, as the UDRP issue clearly does, then there
seems to be no basis for not establishing one, unless this whole "bottom-
up" phraseology is pure hype and ICANN is an entirely autocratic body.

Bill Lovell

[email-masked] wrote:

> Philip,
>
> I have a number of concerns regarding the UDRP Task Force that I would like
> to discuss with you:
>
> 1.  The lack of a public comment period --
>
> Our Bylaws state:  "Any reports or recommendations presented to the NC by
> such bodies shall be posted on a web site accessible by the public for public
> review and comment; absent clear justification, which shall be publicly
> stated at the time of any action, the NC shall not act on any report or
> recommendation until a reasonable time for public comment has passed and the
> NC has reviewed and evaluated all public comments received. The NC is
> responsible for ensuring that all responsible views have been heard and
> considered prior to a decision by the NC."
>
> Public comment is more than a response to a questionnaire.  If the Task Force
> will be drafting recommendations, then a public comment period is needed to
> respond to those recommendations.  I see no indication of that in the current
> timeline posted at
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.html
>
> 2.  The lack of a constituency comment period --
>
> Our Bylaws state:  "Following the receipt of a report or recommendation from
> such a body, the NC may accept the report or recommendation for submission to
> the Constituencies for comment and consultation, or return the report or
> recommendation to the body from which it originated for further work."
>
> There does not appear to be a procedure that allows for the constituencies to
> formally comment on the recommendations cited in this timeline either (which
> would be required prior to a vote:  "After the report or recommendation is
> submitted to the Constituencies and the comment period for the Constituencies
> has expired, the NC shall evaluate the comments to determine whether there is
> a basis for a consensus recommendation to the Board."
>
> 3.  The lack of a GA "body" --
>
> Our Bylaws state that the "substantive work of the DNSO" is to be carried out
> by "research or drafting committees, working groups and other bodies of the GA
> ".  A single GA representative is neither a committee, nor a group, nor a
> body of the GA.  Our Bylaws envisioned a structure whereby the "work" gets
> handled by the members of the GA, with "each recognized Constituency...
> invited to participate in each of such bodies."  Only the "management" of
> such groups is the responsibility of the NC.
>
> Your particular approach is denying the General Assembly its full right to
> participate in the consensus-building process as envisioned by the Bylaws.
> There is a reason why we have had working groups drawn from the General
> Assembly membership to tackle each of the major issues that faced us in the
> past... a working group is the best possible bottoms-up mechanism to discover
> consensus, and yet the NC has decided to not establish a UDRP working group
> (although decisions reached by this Task Force may well impact many
> generations to come).  This decision must be revisited.   Many of us still
> recall the aberrant "conclusions" reached by the last Names Council Task
> Force (Review), and we do not seek to see that failure repeated again... a
> working group is essential on an issue of this importance to counterbalance
> the top-down Task Force approach.
>
> 4.  The lack of consensus mechanisms --
>
> A Task Force alone cannot meet the requirements of consensus.  The Terms of
> Reference for this group indicate that "to the extent no consensus can be
> reasonably reached on an item, majority vote shall rule".  Since when is a
> simple majority considered to be consensus in the ICANN process?   Shall ten
> members of this Task Force decide for all the rest of us, especially when
> eleven of these participants may not even be members of the DNSO?   Consensus
> is more than a majority vote... it documents the extent of agreement and
> disagreement among impacted groups, documents the outreach process used to
> seek to achieve adequate representation of the views of groups that are
> likely to be impacted, and documents the nature and intensity of reasoned
> support and opposition to the proposed policy.  -- How do you expect a single
> questionnaire to accomplish all of the above?
>
> 5.  The lack of open processes --
>
> The General Assembly has a large number of members with expertise in the UDRP
> topic and qualified to participate in such discussions; we even have our own
> UDRP mailing list devoted to this subject.  It is not appropriate that these
> interested members be denied the opportunity to formally participate.  Such a
> decision would run counter to the principles of ICANN which call for fair and
> open processes.  A process is not open if it is closed to the bulk of our
> membership.   This issue requires nothing less than a full working group, and
> Working Group D has already established all the necessary policies and
> procedures to satisfy the requirements of the Council.
>
> 6.  Petition --
>
> Further, whereas the Names Council has previously voted to accept the
> recommendations of Working Group D, and whereas such recommendations allow
> for any member of the GA to petition the NC for the formation of a working
> group, I am now formally presenting you and the Names Council with this
> petition to create a UDRP working group to act in conjunction with the UDRP
> Task Force.
>
> The General Assembly appreciates being asked to submit a candidate to the NC
> UDRP Task Force, but any action which contemplates revisions to the UDRP must
> involve a full General Assembly working group as well.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 01:50:27 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerns & Petition

Philip,

on 7/1/01 10:59 PM, [email-masked] at [email-masked] wrote:
> Philip,
> 
> I have a number of concerns regarding the UDRP Task Force that I would like
> to discuss with you:

The suggestion from our Chair for the NC to form a GA WG-UDRP is a good one
as it provides the necessary link in the chain between the Task Force and a
proper consensus building procedure required by the ByLaws.

Whatever differences the GA may have with the NC in terms of operational
procedures and processes, one GA core principle is to support the NC in its
endeavors, which it undertakes by engaging in consensus building procedures.

While the GA recognizes that members of the NC are also members of the GA,in
turn, the NC acknowledges that a recommendation made without consensus from
the GA has no merit. Not only do the Constituencies have a role to play in
the consensus building procedure required by the ByLaws, but also the GA as
a whole. 

Currently, the GA includes many individuals disenfranchised by the current
constitunecy structure and adversely affected by failures of UDRP. These
voices have a right to be heard, taken into account and reported to the BoD.

The NC has called for the GA to elect one representative to sit on its UDRP
Task Force. The GA response to that call has revealed a surprisingly large
and diversified pool of qualified members willing and able to take on the
role. To expect one individual to serve all GA interests and undertake this
task in isolation is asking a lot.

The question is, "Does the NC call (for one individual to represent the GA
on the UDRP Task Force) constitute restrictive practices that limit the
consensus building process as required by the ByLaws?" From the GA's
perspective, the answer could well be yes. This is not what the ICANN Board
wants to hear.

If whomsoever is elected to the position of GA rep on the NC Task Force is
also the Chair of the WG-UDRP, the elected representative would then conduct
discussions in the WG and have responsibility to report its findings to the
NC Task Force. In this way, the integrity of the NC Task Force is not
compromised, yet would have the benefit of a fully documented consensus
building procedure accounting for all opinions in the GA, inclusive of both
grass roots and legal viewpoints, amongst others.

As Chair of the NC, I urge you to reconsider the proposed procedures for
dealing with the matter of UDRP, expand outreach in this way, and by doing
so, bolster the policy recommendations made by the NC, whatever they may be
ultimately. 

Regards,

Joanna Lane
http://www.internetstakeholders.com

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

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 01:13:37 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA's UDRP Task Force Representative

Danny, Elisabeth and all assembly members,

  Several DNSO GA members have already been nominated and
seconded for the UDRP Task Force Representative, to include
myself, Chris Mckelroy and I believe William Lovell...

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Elisabeth,
>
> The Names Council has asked the General Assembly to select a candidate for
> the UDRP Task Force.  Please prepare an GA-Announce message detailing the
> voting process whereby we may elect such a representative.   As the Council
> has indicated that it seeks to move ahead rapidly with this Task Force,
> please keep the timeline for this process as short as is reasonably possible.
>
> PS.  Self-nominations are acceptable.
>
> Thank you,
> Danny Younger
> --
> 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: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 01:35:14 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Five Questions with David Hernand, New.net CEO

Bruce and all assembly members,

  I believe that Dave Hernand answered the questions rather well in
this interview....  Well done Dave!  >;)

Bruce James wrote:

> Subject: Five Questions with David Hernand, New.net CEO
>
>  http://www.business2.com/technology/2001/06/dhernand.htm
>
> Five Questions with David Hernand
>
> New.net CEO weighs in on the tussle between his company and ICANN over who
> controls the expansion of the Internet.
>
> Jim Welte 06/29/2001
>
> Since early 2001, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Numbers and Names
> (ICANN) has had a major thorn in its side. That thorn, domain name registry
> New.net, has circumvented ICANN's process for naming new domain suffixes to
> expand the Internet beyond the .com, .net and .org domains that have been
> used to date. New.net has gone directly to Internet service providers (ISPs)
> and made deals to allow users to access new domains that New.net sells, and
> has drawn a heap of controversy its way by doing so. Business 2.0 Online
> visits with New.net CEO David Hernand to get his take on the debate
> surrounding the expansion of Internet domains.
>
> In your estimation, why is ICANN inherently incapable of meeting the market'
> s demand for new top-level domain names?
>
> Because of the nature of the ICANN beast, in that it is a consensus-building
> organization that was set up to be a technical standards-setting body to
> make technical decisions, but what it is now trying to do is act as a
> super-government and make political, economic and socio-economic decisions.
> For example, when it last considered introducing new names, several
> applicants were applying for a .kids domain name. And ICANN decided that it
> was controversial to adopt the .kids domain because of the free speech
> considerations and the limitations in ensuring that those sites contain
> kid-friendly content. That is not a technical decision. That is purely a
> political decision. So you have this body that is trying to be
> representative to everyone, but the people that are most vocal don't
> represent everyone but only a well-funded constituency that is not in favor
> of expansion of the name space. And you have a body that is not responsive
> to the market.
>
> Your business model is seemingly predicated on the idea that ICANN doesn't
> have its act together and hasn't met the demand that's out there. What
> happens if they do get their act together? What happens if they smooth out
> the process and allow more TLDs to be rolled out this year?
>
> No one thinks it will happen this year. Even ICANN says it will not happen
> this year. Our objective from the beginning was to go out and populate
> domain names and get them widely accepted and used. And we will create a
> large enough body of users so that ICANN, if it chose to release a
> conflicting name, would be the interloper and they would be choosing to
> create confusion in the market from what's already been used.
>
> Also, we continue to try and pork within the ICANN process. We show up to
> the ICANN meetings and we're very involved in the discussion and we welcome
> opportunities to be involved in the process and to have our names recognized
> and become the official registry for those names. We're just not going to
> wait for the political process to work, we're going to demonstrate the need.
>
> There are some similarities between what we're trying to do and what
> Goto.com did. They tried to use a market-based approach for search engines,
> and at the time it was very controversial. There was a lot of bad press
> about how anyone could do something so crass as to have a market-based
> approach for search, which is supposed to be holistically pure, and people
> didn't realize that search engines were being paid off for years. And now it
> 's a known fact and Goto has done very well and everyone is using a
> pay-for-performance model. Similarly, we are taking a market-based approach
> and we get some negative press because of it.
>
> So if ICANN does start rolling out domains that you have been selling, it
> will essentially come down to a public relations duel to convince the market
> that the other is interloping and creating confusion in the marketplace?
>
> I think the battle will take place in a slightly different way. We will be
> in there applying to be a registry for our names because we've demonstrated
> our ability to run a registry. We've got thousands of users with live
> websites and if ICANN chooses to do something else and create confusion, I
> don't think it will be New.net that will need to be the party out there
> crying foul. It will be Internet users who are making use of these names, so
> the PR battle won't need to be waged by us. It will be between ICANN and the
> hundreds of thousands out there that feel like their names are being taken
> away, which is far more powerful than simply one company in Pasadena.
>
> What has your involvement in the ICANN process been to date? Have you
> established a relationship with Vint Cerf and other board members? How about
> Karl Auerbach, widely regarded as the contrarian of the bunch?
>
> Going to an ICANN meeting is like going to a UN meeting, only slightly more
> dysfunctional. We go to all of the different constituency meetings at ICANN,
> and we went to the last one to answer questions and participate in the
> discussion. As far as the ICANN board, we don't have a close relationship
> with Vint Cerf or anything, we have spoken to many of the board members, and
> some board members support what we're doing, and others are quite critical
> of what we're doing. Vint Cerf has never been very vocal in the press about
> opposing us. He has described us as a clever trick, and he probably shares
> some of the concern that others do about the potential for conflict in the
> future. I'm sure he would like us to wait and work within the ICANN process,
> but surprisingly, he has been much more receptive to us when we've been at
> the podium making comments to the board. He has never treated us in a way
> that shows any kind of disrespect. We've been very impressed with his
> even-handedness. The more negative comments come from other boards members
> and the new CEO of ICANN, who has recognized that we are a threat to them,
> and so he has stepped up the rhetoric.
>
> Karl is the one person on the board that was elected through a democratic
> process, so you might say that he represents the little guy, and yes, he
> tends to be quite a contrarian and a dissident. He does support what we're
> doing, although he doesn't officially come out and say that. Karl is an
> active proponent of increasing the number of top-level domains and believes
> that this whole issue of conflicts is really overblown, that there are
> technology solutions to use in dealing with conflicts.
>
> There are several ways this struggle could play out in the next year to two
> years. In your ideal scenario, how does this play out, with ICANN and
> New.net acting in a somewhat harmonious way or at odds with each other?
>
> If ICANN returns to its roots as a technical standards-setting body and
> focuses on that role, then there will be a future where New.net exists with
> its top-level domains as a registry selling names, many of them recognized
> on the A root server and have worldwide appeal, but some won't. And there
> will be other companies doing the same thing. If ICANN continues its current
> path of trying to play the uber-government of the Internet and makes social
> policy decisions, I think ICANN will lose that battle, be overtaken by
> market forces, and become completely marginalized and perhaps implode.
>
> Jim Welte is a reporter for Business2.0 Online.
>
> /Bruce
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 01:47:14 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [apnic-talk] [apnic-announce] the unexpected service outage at APNIC, 20-21 June.

All assembly members,

  The following along with my reply came from the APNIC-Talk ML.
I thought that this would be of interest to some GA members....

===================================================

Geroge and all,

  I don't understand why it took a full 21 hours to correct this disk
drive problem.  Had you had a hot backup drive the outage should have
hardly even been noticed.  As APNIC now is contracted with ICANN
this situation does not lead me to have confidence in APNIC's and
especially ICANN's technical expertise, which is supposed to be
ICANN's primary responsibility....

[email-masked] wrote:

> [Note "reply-to:" field]
>
>  ========================================
>  To APNIC Members and interested parties,
>
>  APNIC services were disrupted recently when disk problems caused a
>  core network host to be lost in our Brisbane office. The problem arose
>  at 6 pm local time on Wednesday 20 June and full service was restored
>  by 3 pm local time on Thursday 21 June.  Email, ftp, www and DNS
>  services were adversely affected.
>
>  Emergency backup procedures were implemented, restoring DNS and
>  limited web and email services by 3 am on Thursday 21 June. The ftp
>  service was not available during the service failure.
>
>  Unfortunately the outage extended beyond some critical timeout windows
>  and in some cases email for lists will have bounced. Some of you may
>  have received warnings, but all emails will now have been delivered
>  correctly.
>
>  Full service has now been restored and we are actively reviewing our
>  service and systems strategies so as to avoid this kind of service
>  failure in future.
>
>  Please accept APNIC's apologies for the loss of facilities and for any
>  inconvenience caused.
>
>  Should you have any questions about this issue please reply to me at
>  <[email-masked]>
>
>  Best Regards
>
>  George Michaelson
>  Manager Technical Services
> *            APNIC-ANNOUNCE: Announcements concerning APNIC              *
> * To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to [email-masked] *
> *              APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List             *
> * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to [email-masked] *

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: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 03:20:15 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA's UDRP Task Force Representative

on 7/2/01 12:08 AM, [email-masked] at [email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Elisabeth,
> 
> The Names Council has asked the General Assembly to select a candidate for
> the UDRP Task Force.  Please prepare an GA-Announce message detailing the
> voting process whereby we may elect such a representative.   As the Council
> has indicated that it seeks to move ahead rapidly with this Task Force,
> please keep the timeline for this process as short as is reasonably possible.
> 
> PS.  Self-nominations are acceptable.
> 
> Thank you,
> Danny Younger

Hello Elisabeth,

What is "as short as is reasonably possible"? As you may know, we are
working on a Best Practices Initiative that seeks guidelines for known DNSO
tasks. With respect to the election of a GA representative, would you say it
is reasonable to allow 7 days for GA discussion (following receipt of
request from NC), followed by 7 days for nominations, followed by 7 days for
voting, total time needed for procedure to elect a representive, 21 days?
This would give you (aka the secretariat) 7 days notice of services required
by the GA following the initial announcement, but assumes the secretariat
can process announcements within that timeframe. Please advise.

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: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:20:18 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] UDRP review and evaluation

Joanna and Danny,
thanks for your input on the proposed UDRP review of operation. I will
discuss this and get back to the GA.

Philip Sheppard
NC Chair

- --
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: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 04:58:11 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerns & Petition - correction

on 7/2/01 1:50 AM, Joanna Lane at [email-masked] wrote:

> As Chair of the NC, I urge you to reconsider the proposed procedures for
> dealing with the matter of UDRP, expand outreach in this way, and by doing
> so, bolster the policy recommendations made by the NC, whatever they may be
> ultimately.

CORRECTION: As YOU ARE Chair of the NC, I urge you to reconsider the
proposed procedures for dealing with the matter of UDRP etc....

Apologies for this grammatical error.

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: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 05:54:42 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerns & Petition

[email-masked] wrote:

> The General Assembly appreciates being asked to submit a candidate to the NC
> UDRP Task Force, but any action which contemplates revisions to the UDRP must
> involve a full General Assembly working group as well.

I fully support the Chair's petition.

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

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 23:50:57 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Acceptance of Nomination as GA rep on the Review Task Force

I have been nominated by Danny Younger, informally on this list and 
by  Joanna Lane formally to ga-nominations.

If you find me worthy of your vote, I accept the task.
I have sent this template back to ga-nominations:

1a. Full name of the nominee: Joop Teernstra
1b. E-mail address of the nominee: [email-masked]
1c. Background information about the nominee:

Age 56. Married, two teenage children.
Law degree from Amsterdam University; owner of a small webdesign company in 
New Zealand.
Independent.
Founder of the Cyberspace Association, a bottom-up organization seeking 
representation for Individual Domain Name Holders in the DNSO; 
(www.democracy.org.nz/idno/)
Creator of the Polling Booth, a secure on-line Polling/Voting  tool 
designed to help make on-line democracy easier.

Participant in the ICANN formation process since the White 
paper;  participant in the drafting process of the bylaws for the DNSO 
itself (Singapore).
Petitioner to the ICANN Board (Berlin, 1999) for the recognition of an 
Individual Domain Name Owners' constituency.
Mover of several  GA resolutions (Santiago, Yokohama and  Melbourne) 
addressing the lack of an Individual DN holders' constituency in the DNSO.
Active participant in WG-review, the working Goup tasked with submitting 
consensus proposals on DNSO reform to the Names Council.

Recently elected Councillor for InternetNZ, (formerly ISOCNZ) the 
democratically structured delegatee of .nz

1d. Statement of the nominee's objectives in the role as GA delegate to the 
NC Review TF:

I will bring the perspective of the Individual Domain Name Holder as a 
stakeholder in the DNS to the Task Force.
I will share my experiences with the attempted organizing of the Individual 
DN holders with the other members of the  Task Force, including the lessons 
learned about on-line democracy, its pitfalls and its necessity.
I will help drafting the form that such Constituency should take in order 
to be stable and viable, so that the Names Council will be able to 
confidently advise the ICANN Board about its inclusion.
I hope to persuade the Task Force and the Names Council, that such 
inclusion will contribute to a greater viability and credibility of the 
DNSO itself.

I know that this is the wish of the majority of the General Assembly.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
[email-masked]
http://www.imachination.com

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

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 14:15:37 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-icann] ICANN Website

- --=====================_13209920==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

On 06:05 02/07/01, NameCritic said:
>Can someone with some vast technical expertise tell ICANN how they can 
>make their website resolve just by typing in icann.org into the browser 
>without having to type the www first? I know how difficult these technical 
>issues with the Internet can be and I'm sure the ICANN BoD would 
>appreciate more help on major issues such as this one. Or maybe they could 
>start an @Large Study about it to see if it would threaten the stabiliuty 
>of the Internet to do so.
>
>Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

may be could you contact the iCANN Webmaster? [email-masked]
But IMHO they have to call in the RSSAC to make sure it can be supported 
via all the Bind versions and goes well with the anti-New.net IE 6 filter.
Jefsey

- --=====================_13209920==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
On 06:05 02/07/01, NameCritic said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2>Can
someone with some vast technical expertise tell ICANN how they can make
their website resolve just by typing in icann.org into the browser
without having to type the www first? I know how difficult these
technical issues with the Internet can be and I'm sure the ICANN BoD
would appreciate more help on major issues such as this one. Or maybe
they could start an @Large Study about it to see if it would threaten the
stabiliuty of the Internet to do so.</font><br>
&nbsp;<br>
<font face="arial" size=2>Chris McElroy aka
NameCritic</font></blockquote><br>
may be could you contact the iCANN Webmaster?
<font color="#0000FF"><u>[email-masked]</u></font><x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><br>
But IMHO they have to call in the RSSAC to make sure it can be supported
via all the Bind versions and goes well with the anti-New.net IE 6
filter. <br>
Jefsey<br>
</html>

- --=====================_13209920==_.ALT--

- --
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 #582
************************