Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #596
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Saturday, July 7 2001            Volume 01 : Number 596

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

Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 05:14:01 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] King Philip's Proclamation to the Colony

Thomas and all assembly members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> President Younger declared:
>
> >We commoners, the "public" in "public-benefit corporation", have
> >no voting rights whatsoever.
>
> First of all, the GA is certainly NOT the >> "public" in
> "public-benefit corporation" << as you like to put it. Instead, it's
> where the interested part of this public should assemble for
> reasonable and thoughtful debate on all kinds of issues of the DNSO
> - which obviously doesn't happen.

  I would tend to agree with you that the GA is not the "Public" in the
"Public benefit corporation"...  I would disagree that thoughtful debate
on many issues dosn'thappen within the the DNSO GA.  It does quite
regularly...

>
>
> Anyway - may I suggest an experiment?  Just try to look at the GA's
> exchanges with the eyes of someone who's fairly new to but actually
> interested in ICANN matters, and expects a working GA.  You'd be
> extremely disappointed.
>
> Instead of respectful debate, you'd find idiotic flame wars.

  Some forms of debate are often confused with "Flame Wars", that
is sometimes called "Heated Debate"....

>
>
> Instead of a reasonable exchange of opinions between constituencies,
> you'd notice that the GA's co-chairs are apparently fighting the
> NC's chair and the NC in general - that is, of course, the council
> of SO representatives.

  First the DNSO GA does not have a "Co-Chair".  Second, process
concerns that have been discussed and debated openly here on this
ML forum are legitimate debates and discussions regarding process..

>
>
> Instead of an open and intelligent debate on issues, you'd find
> campaigning and procedural concerns.  (Just look at the "discussion"
> on HR 2417.)

  H.R. 2417 is a bill that is being introduced by the US House of
Representatives.  It is and issue that contains another issue, that of
the potential TLD .KIDS.  There is naturally going to be "Heated
Debate" on this topic and the issues that it relates to and also contains

within itself...

>
>
> Instead of chairs who try to moderate the discussion (this is
> distinct from moderating the list in the technical sense!), you'd
> find chairs who contribute to the noise themselves.

  Define "Noise" in terms of the the DNSO GA please...

>
>
> While I concur that the NC doesn't do a good job in helping to
> manage the GA, I have to note that the GA's current chairs are doing
> the worst job ever at this.

  Sure there is much needed improvement in some areas.  The Rules
for instance has been identified as a very serious are of needed reform.
Management is yet another, to be sure.  Rather what I think we have going

on between the NC Chair and the GA Chair and Alt-Chair are about
who controls what and to what degree...  However the ICANN
Bylaws do cover some of this as eric  posted a historic reference
earlier about....

>
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> 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, 06 Jul 2001 11:58:27 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the Worl d

On 22:29 05/07/01, Gomes, Chuck said:
>I also think that an individuals constituency might resolve a lot of the
>issues here.

Sure! in your non profit strange US conception an Individual Domain Name 
Holder constituency means more revenues for the NC, ... or they would have 
no voting rights :-)

I agree that if you pay you should vote.
I disagree that you have to pay twice to vote.
I disagree that you can vote only if you pay.

I will be rude, but clear: there are languages where democracy does not 
spells yet as business.
Jefsey

- --
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, 06 Jul 2001 12:05:36 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The NC does do a good job at managing the only existing consensus

On 21:46 05/07/01, Kent Crispin said:
>On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 10:09:53PM +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > And the NC, which is elected to serve,
>The NC is elected, it says in the Bylaws, to "MANAGE the consensus
>process".  The primary fault with the NC is not that it doesn't serve
>the whims of various tiny subsets of the GA -- in fact it spends
>entirely too much time and energy catering to them.  The primary fault
>of the NC is that it does a miserable job of MANAGING.

Dear Kent,
Let be honnest. The NC did a good job of managing the consensus with Plan B.
The primary fault is with the USCANN: they organized in such a way that 
consensus seem to be found only against what they do.
The NC also made a good job in managing the WG-Review: they left it only a 
few days and strangled it: what else could they do when they known from the 
very begining it would end in asking a USCANN review....
Jefsey

- --
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, 06 Jul 2001 13:19:34 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the Worl d

On 08:21 06/07/01, Jeff Williams said:
>That's now how I understand it Chuck.  Rather it is that the GA members
>want to collect their own budget and manage it, but the NC wants to
>decide how it is used....  Kinda a odd idea, IMHO....

Jeff,
I am afraid GA members have already their budget collection organized: that 
is what make Chuck paid. Now obviously he wants to keep his commission. OK 
with me. But he might want to give us at least one tenth of cent a dollar 
as principal?
Jefsey

- --
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, 06 Jul 2001 13:19:57 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] sub-list usage

Dear Jeff,
don't mind: Patrick wants to change the rules, his priviledge. I want them 
motioned, acknowledged, debated, voted and - if a change is agreed - 
seriously applied. Until then statu quo prevails in respect of bylaws 
(transparency) and Members.

Patrick here explains - since he cannot do it democraticaly - how he wants 
to proceed by mere terorism. I acknowledge that this kind of practice has 
no impact on me. I only feel sorry for the nice chaps he may influence.

Take care.
Jefsey

Note of common interest:
follow-up on WG-Review and Proposition on Sub-Lists.

This only shows that the attempt to enforce WG-Review propositions known as 
the "Jefsey's proposition" by the Chair in an artificial and uncomplete 
non-coordinated, non debated, non voted maner has lead to the expected 
chaos and confrontation with NC. The countrary of what we had worked out 
and experimented together for a productive GA and a good coordination of 
the tasks with the NC.

I note that the so called "Jefsey's proposition" is very near from the 
BostonGroup experience and practice decribe by Karl Bild. But it takes into 
account three additional elements: that we never meat face to face, that we 
are not a close group and that we want to reach consensus. I must say that 
I use it for my own business needs and it works well (I could not afford to 
get paid by the DNSO/GA :-) ).

Patrick did not participate to the WG-Review. You may note his resulting 
inconsistency in wanting to only partly apply its conclusions. He concludes 
his mail in ... switching lists to pursue the same thread. This is his 
constant and main activity. To drive GA issues to sub-lists and to complain 
when these issues come back to the GA where they belong...

I note that I proposed Patrick an interesting use of Danny's sub-lists 
responding to Bill Williams request for mutuel education. That the sub-list 
be declared non-debating and mutual-education areas. Where newbies and old 
timers could ask about others positions, back-ground, tips, etc... Dispute 
and personal remarks prohibited. Without affecting transparency it would 
serve a lot the debates on the GA and this time certainly reduce traffc and 
misunderstandings.

On 04:15 06/07/01, Jeff Williams said:
>Patrick and all,
>
>I for one, and glad that Jefsey is among us as and assembly member.
>
>Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > Hi Thomas
> >
> > > In either of these case, I don't thinkt here is any need to start
> > > bothering the ga list with public notes about Jefsey's behaviour. We
> > > all see what he does, and make our own judgements about it.
> >
> > I suspect that many people are not fully aware of the list dynamics.
> >
> > > If you want to talk just to him, and try to persuade him to follow
> > > consensus (which will either be unnecessary, or unsuccessful - see
> > > above), please do so,
> >
> > Jefsey is perfectly well aware of what he is doing and why.  It is quite
> > deliberate and designed to sabotage the lists.  He has said so publicly.
> >
> > Persuasion is not an option.  Been there and done that.
> >
> > > possibly CCing your co-chair or ga-abuse.
> >
> > As has been pointed out, it is not a breach of the rules.
> >
> > > But, please, don't do so on ga.
> >
> > Unfortunately that is the only way to change the rules. At present the 
> GA is
> > powerless in every respect.  I see that as shameful.
> >
> > But I will take the discussion onto [ga-rules] for now.
> >
> > 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

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

Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 23:59:03 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Help pass HR 2417 .KIDS

At 13:15 5/07/2001 -0500, Bruce James wrote:
>     Roberto:
>
>     The US Congress is not going to let the DoC do anything to the free
>ICANN from the USG control. That is why this bill will pass.
>
>     /Bruce

Roberto,

Although I strongly agree with the points that you make against such a 
bill, Bruce may turn out to see this prediction fulfilled.
The same rhetoric that was used to shoot down the gTLDMoU, will propel this 
bill.
Plus the emotive factor of the proposed TLD name .kids.

- -joop

- --
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, 06 Jul 2001 11:09:27 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the Worl d

I hate to tell you, but Business has never been a Democracy !

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jefsey Morfin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 04:58
Subject: RE: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the Worl d

On 22:29 05/07/01, Gomes, Chuck said:
>I also think that an individuals constituency might resolve a lot of the
>issues here.

Sure! in your non profit strange US conception an Individual Domain Name
Holder constituency means more revenues for the NC, ... or they would have
no voting rights :-)

I agree that if you pay you should vote.
I disagree that you have to pay twice to vote.
I disagree that you can vote only if you pay.

I will be rude, but clear: there are languages where democracy does not
spells yet as business.
Jefsey

- --
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, 6 Jul 2001 09:20:05 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Help pass HR 2417 .KIDS

Hello Joop,

Friday, July 06, 2001, 4:59:03 AM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Although I strongly agree with the points that you make against such a
> bill, Bruce may turn out to see this prediction fulfilled.
> The same rhetoric that was used to shoot down the gTLDMoU, will propel this 
> bill.

No, not at all.  This is a faulty assumption.

The gTLD-MoU was not shot down by Congress.  It was shot down because
in fact IANA had no authority to enter into it, and was done purely by
the executive branch, via the NSF and then the DoC.

The two situations are totally different, and there is nothing to
parallel them.

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

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 12:07:04 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] U.S. Department of Commerce + ICANN = Need for Congressional Oversight

>Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 10:12:44 -0400
>From: Declan McCullagh <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: FC: Feds' "safe harbor" site displayed private info about U.S.
firms
>
>
>http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,45031,00.html
>
>    'Secure' U.S. Site Wasn't Very
>    By Declan McCullagh ([email-masked])
>    2:00 a.m. July 6, 2001 PDT
>
>    WASHINGTON -- A U.S. government website devoted to helping businesses
>    keep sensitive information private instead revealed confidential
>    information about American firms.
>
>    A Commerce Department privacy website exposed proprietary information
>    -- such as revenue, number of employees, and the European countries
>    with which the firm does business -- that U.S. companies provided to
>    the government in strict confidence.
>

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-Arizona.com
http://www.DOT.Arizona

- --
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, 6 Jul 2001 16:39:56 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the World

Jeff:

In answer to:" ANd do you have a suggestion that you would like to share
with all of us?"

My suggestion is to draft an agenda item for the Names Council
concerning this and send it to [email-masked]

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeff
Williams
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 4:15 AM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: 'Philip Sheppard'; '[ga]'
Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the
World

Peter and all assembly members,

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> We need to separate this "Individual Domain Name Holders, and other 
> persons who are NOT a member of any constituency from those who ARE 
> members of a (DNSO) constituency.

  I am not sure that we NEED to do this, but that it is a good idea for
" Individual Domain Name Holders" to have their own Constituency.

>
>
> Within the DNSO, of course the secretariat provides service to the 
> entire DNSO.

  Glad you used the work SERVICE here in this statement...  >;)

>
>
> What is at issue, is who can request services from the secretariat, or

> authorize incurring costs.

  I would think any DNSO GA member could, amongst others...

>
>
> Historically, direction to the secretariat to set up lists, incur 
> costs, etc, has come from the Names Council, who represents the 
> constituencies. After all, the constituencies elected their NC reps.

  Certainly the NC reps should be a vehicle to which services from the
Sec. can be requested.  However individual GA members should also have
this ability.  So should the Chair and Alt-Chair, after all they are
elected by the GA members...

>
>
> Perhaps what is needed is a clear definition of who is authorized to 
> make these requests, and a procedure for GA chair to generate such 
> requests for authorization.

  Perhaps, yes.  ANd do you have a suggestion that you would like to
share with all of us?

>
>
> Should the GA chair be able to generate such requests unilaterally?

 Yes, for some specified services....  They need to be outlined...

>
>
> Or
>
> Should such requests be generated after consensus is reached on the 
> subject on the GA list or in face to face meetings

  It should be based upon a vote (on line) of the GA members...

>
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Bret 
> A. Fausett
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 11:23 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Patrick Corliss'; Philip Sheppard
> Cc: M. Stuart Lynn, ICANN; [ga]
> Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the 
> World
>
> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > Let me see if I understand this.  The constituencies pay for the 
> > services, but the GA wants to call the shots?
>
> The GA is _supposed to be_ an umbrella organization encompassing all 
> the constituencies, so the idea that resources could be allocated to 
> it without charging those who participate in it a separate fee isn't 
> that hard to accept. I hope the current problem of this being a de 
> facto place for unaffiliated DNSO participants will be cured when an 
> individual domain name owners constituency is finally chartered and 
> operational.
>
>       -- Bret
>
> --
> 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

- --
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, 06 Jul 2001 16:07:30 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the World

Peter and all assembly members,

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Jeff:
>
> In answer to:" ANd do you have a suggestion that you would like to share
> with all of us?"
>
> My suggestion is to draft an agenda item for the Names Council
> concerning this and send it to [email-masked]

  I am sure this is not necessary as the ICANN Bylaws clearly indicate
what the process should be.  The fact that it is not being followed
is of course a matter of some concern.  In that the NC, seems to
be willing to disregard the ICANN Bylaws at their whim, that
would constitute a significant problem.  And it is self (NC) created
in this instance.

>
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeff
> Williams
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 4:15 AM
> To: Peter de Blanc
> Cc: 'Philip Sheppard'; '[ga]'
> Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the
> World
>
> Peter and all assembly members,
>
> Peter de Blanc wrote:
>
> > We need to separate this "Individual Domain Name Holders, and other
> > persons who are NOT a member of any constituency from those who ARE
> > members of a (DNSO) constituency.
>
>   I am not sure that we NEED to do this, but that it is a good idea for
> " Individual Domain Name Holders" to have their own Constituency.
>
> >
> >
> > Within the DNSO, of course the secretariat provides service to the
> > entire DNSO.
>
>   Glad you used the work SERVICE here in this statement...  >;)
>
> >
> >
> > What is at issue, is who can request services from the secretariat, or
>
> > authorize incurring costs.
>
>   I would think any DNSO GA member could, amongst others...
>
> >
> >
> > Historically, direction to the secretariat to set up lists, incur
> > costs, etc, has come from the Names Council, who represents the
> > constituencies. After all, the constituencies elected their NC reps.
>
>   Certainly the NC reps should be a vehicle to which services from the
> Sec. can be requested.  However individual GA members should also have
> this ability.  So should the Chair and Alt-Chair, after all they are
> elected by the GA members...
>
> >
> >
> > Perhaps what is needed is a clear definition of who is authorized to
> > make these requests, and a procedure for GA chair to generate such
> > requests for authorization.
>
>   Perhaps, yes.  ANd do you have a suggestion that you would like to
> share with all of us?
>
> >
> >
> > Should the GA chair be able to generate such requests unilaterally?
>
>  Yes, for some specified services....  They need to be outlined...
>
> >
> >
> > Or
> >
> > Should such requests be generated after consensus is reached on the
> > subject on the GA list or in face to face meetings
>
>   It should be based upon a vote (on line) of the GA members...
>
> >
> >
> > Peter de Blanc
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Bret
> > A. Fausett
> > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 11:23 AM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Patrick Corliss'; Philip Sheppard
> > Cc: M. Stuart Lynn, ICANN; [ga]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] President Younger's Independence Day Address to the
> > World
> >
> > Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > > Let me see if I understand this.  The constituencies pay for the
> > > services, but the GA wants to call the shots?
> >
> > The GA is _supposed to be_ an umbrella organization encompassing all
> > the constituencies, so the idea that resources could be allocated to
> > it without charging those who participate in it a separate fee isn't
> > that hard to accept. I hope the current problem of this being a de
> > facto place for unaffiliated DNSO participants will be cured when an
> > individual domain name owners constituency is finally chartered and
> > operational.
> >
> >       -- Bret
> >
> > --
> > 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

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, 06 Jul 2001 18:08:48 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: ICANN's Karl Auerbach responds to Joe Sims over .kids domain

    Very interesting email from Karl Auerbach:

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Declan McCullagh" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 17:18
Subject: FC: ICANN's Karl Auerbach responds to Joe Sims over .kids domain

Previous messages:

"ICANN replies to Politech post about House bill and .kids"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02227.html

"U.S. House bill would force ICANN to approve .kids domain"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02216.html

- ---

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 12:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
To: Declan McCullagh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: FC: ICANN replies to Politech post about House bill and .kids
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>

On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:

 > [Perhaps I have done ICANN a disservice by suggesting that it is
"becoming
 > just another regulated federal agency."
 > .... See below for a note from
 > Joe Sims on behalf of ICANN. --Declan]

Joe Sims does not speak for ICANN.

As for my own point of view as a member of the Board of Directors of
ICANN:

Yes, there are thousands, probably tens of thousands, of bills submitted
every year into the hoppers of legislatures and administrative agencies
around the world.  And a lot of those do not become law.

But many do.

Any time members of the legislative body of the United States go so far as
to submit a draft bill that not only affects ICANN, but indeed directly
names ICANN and mandates ICANN behaviour, then as a Director I have to sit
up and take notice.

It simply would not be prudent to stick my Director's head in the sand
and pretend to see nothing.

I do not consider it appropriate management to bluster, as Sims does,
against a situation and pretend that it has gone away.

Unlike Sims, I am Director of ICANN and I am accountable for ICANN's
actions.  I am not free to live in a fantasy world in which the United
States Congress is of no more import than a small cloud in an otherwise
clear sky.

Personally, I think that the bill has some troublesome aspects - for
instance, given that the US Government, not ICANN, controls the root zone
via a contract with Verisign, the bill could simply take the form of a
mandate to the Dept of Commerce to take the appropriate steps without any
involvement from ICANN at all.

But I find a lack of wisdom in any top-down imposition of "chartered" or
limited purpose top level domains, particularly one in which the subject
matter is as subjective and personal as "appropriate" content for
children.  (One has to wonder at the amount of the content that would be
considered appropriate by both the parents of a five year old Pakistani
Islamic girl and the parents of a fifteen year old Danish boy.)

I am perfectly happy to let private companies try to find their way
through such a maze.  But it seems rather an inappropriate role for a
national government, particularly given the extraterritorial impacts.

The bill also falls victim to the commonplace belief that the domain name
system is the only naming system for the Internet, and that the Internet
is merely the world wide web.

Content labelling by use of domain name names is a very naive, and
bludgeoning, way to make use Internet technology as a tool of government.

- --karl--

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.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: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 17:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: ICANN's Karl Auerbach responds to Joe Sims over .kids domain

Karl,

aparently .info, biz, and all the rest of the new gltds are labels for
content; and since certain new tlds have restrictions it seems .kids
content censoring is in-line with the rest of icann's previous work.

- -rick

> Content labelling by use of domain name names is a very naive, and
> bludgeoning, way to make use Internet technology as a tool of government.
>
> --karl--

- --
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, 6 Jul 2001 17:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: ICANN's Karl Auerbach responds to Joe Sims over .kids domain

> > Content labelling by use of domain name names is a very naive, and
> > bludgeoning, way to make use Internet technology as a tool of government.

On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Rick H Wesson wrote:

> aparently .info, biz, and all the rest of the new gltds are labels for
> content; and since certain new tlds have restrictions it seems .kids
> content censoring is in-line with the rest of icann's previous work.

Right.  And I find it very troubling that ICANN has undertaken what, to my
mind, amounts to a vague, and probably unenforceable, promise to the
internet community that .info and the ICANN approved version of .biz will
be used in particular ways.

Is "using" a domain name to be measured by web services, by e-mail
services, by chat or messaging services, ... ?  And what is ICANN going to
do if somebody deep down in the ICANN approved .biz should be hosting an
instant-message-based "escort" business?

That kind of thing simply is not part of "technical" coordination of the
DNS - that's the kind of thing that is better suited for a legislature to
handle.

As a general matter, it's my feeling that ICANN ought to be absolutely
blind to any purported semantics of a domain name.  There are plenty of
laws on the books already to handle defamation, trademark infringement,
misappropriation of identity, misrepresentation, etc.  We don't need to
overlay that system with a lex-ICANNia.

		--karl--

- --
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 #596
************************