Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #606
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, July 11 2001           Volume 01 : Number 606

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:02:51 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] a quote from Lynn

Sandy and all assembly members,

Sandy Harris wrote:

> Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > "Universal resolvability means the ability to find the same answer to
> > the same query from anywhere on the public Internet. The position
> > advocated by New.net relies on the fundamentally erroneous assumption
> > that universal resolvability is not an important feature of the DNS.
> >
> > To the contrary, universal resolvability is one of the key design
> > elements of the DNS. If users perceived that the DNS began to produce
> > different results in response to the same question, this would seriously
> > undermine confidence in the reliability of the Internet to users and
> > potential users around the world."
> >
> > Yes I take this a little out of context but I do not like the
> > fundamental position that any system would require only one right answer
> > to the same question.
>
> That's been one of the basic ideas all along. Way back in 1987, RFC 1024
> "DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES" states the design goal for the
> DNS system, and the very first one was:
>
> " The primary goal is a consistent name space ...
>
> This is fundamental.

  Yes it is fundamental.  However there are many ways in which this
goal, "a consistent name space", can and is being achieved.
However the ICANN BoD and staff don't seem to see this clearly
and have decided to try to dictate the method (only one) that
they believe achieves this fundamental goal.  There iw where the
Market place and the ICANN BoD and staff have parted company,
so to speak....

>
>
> > It sounds like he is saying that users are too
> > stupid to handle a choice therefor we must not give it to them.  No
> > rereading his policy paper; it does not sound like it, it is it.
> >
> > There may be reasons for this policy but to lay it off on the users
> > being to stupid to make alternating choices between roots is wrong both
> > technically and morally.
>
> It's not that the users are stupid or incapable of making choices, the
> issue is that the system should not force them to make such choices.

  Agreed.  By that same token, the "system" should also not prohibit
choices form being made either...

>
> Names should map to addresses and resources in a predictable and
> consistent way.

  Yes they should.  And the ICANN BoD and staff have decidedly to
not comply with this basic fundamental principal by knowingly introducing
colliding TLD's, .BIZ and .INFO...

>
>
> Have you ever used a piece of software where the behaviour you get
> depends on some obscure setting you didn't know about? My example
> would be Word doing various auto-correction and auto-format things
> to text I was writing. Yes, like most users, I'm smart enough to
> dig through menus and documentation and find out to how to fix it,
> but it is still irritating as the devil.
>
> When I type 'www.whatever.biz' into my browser, I don't want the
> result to depend on how some administrator at my ISP has set up
> their DNS server.

  Then you should set you parameters to point to the DNS in-address-arpa
IP address that you choose to point to for your desired resolution
result.

> Yes, I could figure out what was going on and
> complain to the ISP, switch ISPs or set up my own name server if
> I didn't like it. However, I shouldn't have to!

  You don't have to do any of these things.  You can do all of what you are
suggesting/complaining about, with you client software.

>
>
> So the question is not whether we need a single consistent namespace,
> but how to build it.

  Well it seems that the market place disagrees with this assumption or
position and New.Net, amongst others is stark evidence of.  The better
or more accurate question is how can we find ways in which to
share Root structures and independent stand alone registries in a
stable and cooperative fashion.  What are the choices?  Which ones
can be implemented seamlessly or without too much overhead, and
what methods (Technical) are beneficial to expansion of the DNS
in a meaningful and market based demand fashion.

>
>
> I'd say we do that by accepting the fact that ICANN has been created
> to do this job and given the responsibility for that namespace, then
> trying to make ICANN work as it should. Among the things I'd like to
> push for:

  ICANN was created to work with the stakeholder community in a cooperative
way to meet market demand and provide stability in doing so...  Thus far
this has not occurred adequately.  As a result, the market place will
search using various methods to do this itself without the top-down
approach that the ICANN BoD and staff have decidedly to undertake.

>
>
> The complex political compromise process during ICANN formation led
> to a board that was to have nine elected at large directors and nine
> from various interest groups. Step one is to achieve that balance.

  Yes and no here.  Step one is to have the @large as the majority or
equal footing as seats on the board with other various interest groups.

>
> (It isn't the balance I'd have chosen -- I'd like to see public
> interest groups like EFF with as many votes as all the business
> constituencies combined -- but it's in the bylaws and better than
> what we have to date.)
>
> Think about remedies for the over-use and over-selling of .com, the
> biggest problem in the current namespace.
> (My first thought is just stop .com registration, but is there a
> better solution?)
>
> Fix the UDRP; see my comments in other threads.
> (I'd like to say scrap it, but doubt that's practical.)

  Fixing the UDRP is possible but not likely to happen or
practical on a global basis.

>
>
> Technically, a TLD is no harder to set up than an SLD. The $50,000
> application fee is absurd. Scrap it. Aim at 100 new TLDs by 2002,
> with cost well under $1000. If it's possible to give the "alternate
> root" people some sort of olive branch in the process, so much the
> better.

  We agree here!

>
>

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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 14:56:07 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Reminder: TLDA Nominations under way

Just a reminder that nominations are under way for TLDA board and committee
seats.

Members can nominate and can also run for the seats on the board and
committees (see http://www.tlda.org).

Nominations run through July 13, 2001 at 23:59:59 UTC.

Elections will be July 27 12:00 UTC - July 29 12:00 UTC.

To see if you qualify as a member of the TLDA or to apply for
membership vist http://www.tlda.org

John Palmer
Secretary
TLDA

- --
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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:27:17 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] a quote from Lynn

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
To: "Sandy Harris" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 17:02
Subject: Re: [ga] a quote from Lynn

>>  If it's possible to give the "alternate
> > root" people some sort of olive branch in the process, so much the
> > better.
>
>   We agree here!
>

[ THE FOLLOWING IS MY OWN OPINION]

Actually, did you know that ICANN could join the TLDA as a representative of
the
USG (if the USG wants them to be their representative)? The USG is a TLD
holder -
they hold COM, NET, ORG, MIL, GOV, EDU and US.

ccTLD holders by the way are automatically accepted as members. (TLDA has a
few
ccTLD holders as members).

NeuLevel and Afilias can join as well. Even though they hold colliding TLDs,
they
are still welcomed as members.

John

- --
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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:04:30 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] European Root ...

There seems to have been born recently a European Root from a marriage
of German and French netizens. 

http://www.boroon.net/

Now don't look upon this as a further splitting of the DNS. As far as
I have been able to see, the one server up so far faithfully follows
ORSC. 

For the record, I have nothing to do with it :-)

- -- 
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:11:47 +1200
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] a quote from Lynn

Also quoting from ICANN follow up to new.net.

As a ccTLD operator I have major concerns with this statement:

"Today, there are only three global commercial TLDs in the authoritative
root, all operated by a single registry operator. The four6 new global
commercial additions (operated by four different registry operators)
endorsed by ICANN represent a greater-than-100% increase in the number of
global TLDs, and a 400% increase in the number of separate registry
operators.7 If experience shows that these additions can be made without
adverse effects - and there is every reason to hope that will be the case -
then presumably additional TLDs can be established more quickly in the
future should that prove desirable."

The first line I feel is shocking in this clipping from
http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-3-background/response-to-new.net-09jul01.htm

It appears this is a formal attempt to reposition GENERIC TLDs as now being
GLOBAL TLDs. This appears to be an attempt to under mine ccTLD's by making a
ghetto for them and 'putting them in their place' by them being regional and
not global. 

Last time I checked any gTLD or ccTLD can resolve anywhere in the world so
what right does ICANN claim their are only _3_ commercial TLD's?

Steven Heath
Councillor, InternetNZ (.nz ccTLD Manager)
- --
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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:19:58 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] a quote from Lynn

Hello L,

Tuesday, July 10, 2001, 12:14:32 PM, L Gallegos wrote:
> In actuality, Lynn's statement is good.  There should not be any
> duplication, that's all.  It has nothing to do with whether you 
> choose one root over another.  When you want to go to nic.biz, 
> you should always get to the ARNI .biz registry, not Nuelevel.  
> When you want to go to computers.biz, you should always see the 
> same one.  That much should always be true.

> What he is trying to say is that there should be only the USG root, 
> but he misses the point that there will always be more than one 
> root.  Universality is the uniqueness of the domain throughout all 
> roots.

Under your position above, there is no reason for multiple roots, if
they all contain the same data, there is no inherent benefit to
multiple root systems.

I have to say, this argument doesn't help your claims any, Leah.

- -- 
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: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 01:34:23 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] a quote from Lynn

Dear Steven,
I am afraid the AmerICANN has some positionning problem.
USA as you know have no USNIC. For a while the US traditional
generosity guested the international concerns, but as time flows
there are conflicts. Now we see progressivily the situation to
clarify and the ccTLDs will become obviously a smaller part
of the cake as new TLDs will come in.

.us is around. .eu is probably not a big ccTLD, but the European
thinking is developping about Internet management.

The urgency is now for ccTLD to forget a little bit about TLD and
to think more about NIC (National Internet Centers?) and how to
provide services, coherence, annimation to their users and local
TLDs, with the support of their local @large, ISPs, ASPs. Also
to join force wih local consumer representatives to develop an
Internet of proximity which will be their legitimacy... and their
protection vs. local government.  They should remember that
in a few months "experimental" inclusive TLDs and media may
have changed a lot of things about DNs and balance sheet.

We should all benefit from Lynn "oddities". "Global" TLDs is not
a today question at ccTLDs. The word is around. Lynn is a
new comer - so no historics - and he is at the core. His positions
are not necessarily adequate and his moves not necessarily
acceptable, but he reflects today's concerns ... or what is still
possible.

OK. His last document is illegal in here, as he quotes Ben's
awkward mails which a re public legal offence to privacy law,
and is a bylaw violation. But is that what is of importance
to you in NZ? IMHO what is of real importance is that Lynn's
document is so totally outdated that his only real argument is
wrong gossips about Leah's list. That is the point: the current
structures and solutions are aging.

The task was to provide a good *infrastructure* to the net. They
have worked on a pseudo governance *structure* instead. Well,
the infrastructure is drifting a little bit, making some earthquakes
in the structure.

Jefsey

On 00:11 11/07/01, Steven Heath said:
>Also quoting from ICANN follow up to new.net.
>
>As a ccTLD operator I have major concerns with this statement:
>
>"Today, there are only three global commercial TLDs in the authoritative
>root, all operated by a single registry operator. The four6 new global
>commercial additions (operated by four different registry operators)
>endorsed by ICANN represent a greater-than-100% increase in the number of
>global TLDs, and a 400% increase in the number of separate registry
>operators.7 If experience shows that these additions can be made without
>adverse effects - and there is every reason to hope that will be the case -
>then presumably additional TLDs can be established more quickly in the
>future should that prove desirable."
>
>The first line I feel is shocking in this clipping from
>http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-3-background/response-to-new.net-09jul01.htm
>
>It appears this is a formal attempt to reposition GENERIC TLDs as now being
>GLOBAL TLDs. This appears to be an attempt to under mine ccTLD's by making a
>ghetto for them and 'putting them in their place' by them being regional and
>not global.
>
>Last time I checked any gTLD or ccTLD can resolve anywhere in the world so
>what right does ICANN claim their are only _3_ commercial TLD's?
>
>Steven Heath
>Councillor, InternetNZ (.nz ccTLD Manager)
>--
>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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:11:16 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Comments from Vint Cerf

Milton,

I believe the document states current policy - the unique, authoritative root 
is
part of the core design of the DNS and the basis for ICANN's responsibility in
the creation of new TLDs.

If the DNSO believes a different policy is needed, it is free to develop 
proposals
for the ICANN board to consider.

Vint Cerf
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00605.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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:13:03 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Comments from Karl Auerbach

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Joe Sims wrote:

> Milton, not only are your views minority, but your characterizations and
> facts are wrong.   As Stuart described in detail in the original draft, and
> at the public forum meeting in Stockholm, this is a statement of existing
> policy, not an attempt to change policy or create new policy.

Milton - You ought to save the message from which the above quote was
obtained; it is a first-class example of Orwellian Newspeak.

The facts are these:

The Board of Directors of ICANN has never adopted any policy on the
matters discussed in the draft.

Neither has the DNSO (which happens to be the forum designated by the
by-laws as the focal point for DNS policy.)

So it is not correct say that it is "a statement of existing policy" of
ICANN.

In Stockholm there was a bit of chat about Stuart Lynn's document.

The chat was civil and friendly.

But that chat should not be taken as implying agreement on the underlying
topic.

As events transpired in Stockholm, the question did not rise to to the
level of a properly posted resolution, much less one that was voted upon
by the Board, and much much less one that was approved by the Board of
Directors.

> In addition, the Board in Stockholm authorized Stuart to finalize and
> publish this document as a statement of existing policy; perhaps you
> were out of the room.

If the Board of Directors did this, then I, as a member of that Board,
must have also been out of the room.

And the person taking the minutes must have also been absent -- There is
nothing in the minutes about any board decision to elevate Stuart's
document to a policy statement.

So it is incorrect to say that "the Board in Stockholm authorized" anybody
to do anything with this document.

By-the-way, Joe Sims does not speak for ICANN.

        --karl--
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00607.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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:14:32 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Comments from Louis Touton

To the Names Council:

In an effort to clarify matters:

   1.  The policies that ICANN follows are not limited to those adopted
by the ICANN Board since ICANN was created.  They also include the
policies previously in place, subject of course to revision through the
community-based ICANN processes.

   2.  At its 2 June 2001 meeting, the Names Council passed the
following resolution:  "The Names Council considers that multiple roots
are outside the scope of the ICANN DNSO."  Milton Mueller voted for that
resolution.

   3.  Two days later, at its 4 June 2001 meeting, the ICANN Board of 
Directors discussed the 28 May discussion draft of "A Unique,
Authoritative Root for the DNS."  The full minutes are not yet
completed, but a recording of the proceedings is available though
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/agenda-bod-060401.html>,
as are the scribe's notes.  As the scribe reports, the Board reached
consensus that the discussion draft should be revised based on comments
and posted in final.

   4.  Individual directors of ICANN have an important role, when acting
in conjunction with the other Board members, in adoption of new and
changed ICANN policies.  Individual directors do not speak on behalf of
ICANN, however, except where they have been authorized to do so under
the authority of the Board.  The Board has elected Stuart Lynn as
ICANN's President and Chief Executive Officer, "in charge of all of its
activities and business," and as such he is authorized to speak for
ICANN.  As Dr. Lynn stated in presenting the finalized document:

   "Based on those comments, I have finalized the document. This final
    version has been posted as the third member (ICP-3) of the Internet
    Coordination Policy series.

   "Many members of the community informed me that they felt the
    document is fundamentally correct and applauded it as a faithful and
    well-documented statement of the long-standing policies underlying
    the principle of a single, authoritative root capable of preserving
    a robust, unique naming system for Internet users worldwide. Many 
    also provided me with constructive suggestions for improvement. 
    Helpful suggestions also came from some of those who were critical
    of the document. 

   "Some of the latter raised the objection that the document is
    creating new policy without going through proper process. As the
    discussion draft pointed out, however, it did not create new policy, 
    but was carefully limited to articulating existing policy. The
    creation of new policies implicates ICANN's community-based
    consensus-development processes, but until those processes achieve
    new policies the pre-existing policies (whether developed through 
    previous ICANN processes or received by ICANN at its creation)
    should be evenhandedly followed. 

   "In evaluating the document, the essential focus should be on what
    policies ICANN has developed or received, rather than what policies 
    one wishes were in place. This essential enquiry depends heavily on
    documentation of past statements and actions; for this reason the
    discussion draft undertook a careful review of these and, in the
    final version, I have added some additional citations that were 
    suggested in the ensuing discussion. Although some of the critical 
    comments had very thoughtful statements about what policy should be, 
    they lacked specific documentation that the established policy
    differs from that stated in the discussion draft."

Best regards,

Louis Touton
ICANN Vice-President and General Counsel 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00608.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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:17:43 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Comments from Milton Mueller

>>> vint cerf <[email-masked]> 07/10/01 09:05AM >>>

I believe the document states current policy - the unique, authoritative root 
is
part of the core design of the DNS and the basis for ICANN's responsibility in
the creation of new TLDs.

MM:
If Stuart Lynn's paper really defined current policy
there would be no need for a new document to state it, nor
would there have been a need to solicit "comments and suggestions"
to help define it. 

An existing policy could reference clear, explicit statements,
that already existed. It could refer to past DNSO processes
that explicitly dealt with the relationship between ICANN
and other roots. 

No such documents exist. No such processes can be
referred to.

As for RFC 2826, as I have noted countless times, all that says
is that you need a coordinated root. It doesn't say who coordinates
it, it doesn't say how it gets coordinated or what rules or 
algorithms are used to do so. You could be RFC 2826-compliant
by:

a) avoiding any TLD assignments that conflict with alternate roots
b) adding all alternate root assignments to the ICANN root
c) pretending that alt.roots don't exist

The lack of determinism is proof that no current policy exists.

I am still baffled as to why ICANN management seems to think
that Lynn's paper defines a policy that everyone supports
but is scared to death of allowing that policy to be developed
and ratified by the DNSO.

regards,
MM
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00609.html

>>> Louis Touton <[email-masked]> 07/10/01 01:52PM >>>
   2.  At its 2 June 2001 meeting, the Names Council passed the
following resolution:  "The Names Council considers that multiple roots
are outside the scope of the ICANN DNSO."  Milton Mueller voted for that
resolution.

MM:
As everyone on the NC knows, I wanted to create an open
Working Group to discuss the problem of alternate roots
and develop a real consensus policy.

Some people on the NC and ICANN staff are afraid to 
discuss that issue at all. They were making moves to 
issue a statement without any consensus-development
process (which is what Lynn ended up doing).

As I made it clear at the time when voting, if the Names
Council cannot deal with the problem of alternate roots in an
aboveboard and open manner, then it should not deal with
it at all. That is why I voted for the resolution:

"Multiple Roots are outside the scope of the DNSO."

Now, Louis, please explain to us how that vote is consistent
with Lynn's paper, which attacks the proprietors of other
roots.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00610.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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 19:35:55 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Comments from Louis Touton

Louis Touton wrote:

>   1.  The policies that ICANN follows are not limited to those adopted
>by the ICANN Board since ICANN was created.  They also include the
>policies previously in place, subject of course to revision through the
>community-based ICANN processes.

Which would be fine, if the community really did have a say in what ICANN
has done, and is doing.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:49:18 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Comments from Danny Younger

If the topic of alternate roots is not "beyond the scope" of our ICANN 
President, then it should not be "beyond the scope of the DNSO", even if so 
declared by the Names Council.   It would be appropriate for the GA to again 
petition the Council for a working group on this topic... I am not arguing 
that a different policy needs to be adopted, only that we should exercise our 
right to consider this policy, and if required, submit recommendations to 
improve upon that policy.

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

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

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:59:28 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] NC Breakdown

For those interested (I was bored) I have done a breakdown by region and 
country of the Names Council.  Despite the rules not as diverse as one would 
have expected.

Regions

7 - North America
6 - Europe
4 - Latin America
4 - Asia-Pacific
0 - Africa

So North America and Europe have 13/21 positions.  Not surprising I suppose 
when you consider Internet connectvitiy but would be useful to know if the 
proportions are in line with numbers of internet connected people.

Countries

6 - US
3 - UK
2 - Australia
1 - Virgin Islands
1 - France
1 - Mexico
1 - New Zealand
1 - Sweden
1 - Argentina
1 - South Korea
1 - Panama
1 - Germany
1 - Chile

DPF

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

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

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:48:16 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: There is an alternative to ICANN - The TLDA  (was Re: [ga] a quote from Lynn)

At 14:42 10/07/01 -0500, John Palmer wrote:

>2. TLDA is a democratic body. ALL officer positions are open for election by
>TLDA members (exception: a few of the interim board members will be
>retained for a few months to a year after the current election). TLDA is
>currently holding
>nominations for its officers and committees with the first election
>scheduled for July 27 - 29.

John,

That's all very fine for TLD "holders", but how does the TLDA provide for a 
structure that takes democratic input from registrants under your members' 
TLD's?
This is what ICANN is being lambasted for and what it has to try to rectify.

According to the website the TLDA is only a trade association for TLD 
holders. As such it would seem to be an alternative for only one aspect of 
ICANN.

Do your members have contracts with registrants?
Could you point to a URL with a typical sample contract?

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.democracy.org.nz/idno/)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --
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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:31:30 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Comments from Danny Younger

Hello DannyYounger,

Tuesday, July 10, 2001, 5:49:18 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> If the topic of alternate roots is not "beyond the scope" of our ICANN 
> President, then it should not be "beyond the scope of the DNSO", even if so 
> declared by the Names Council.   It would be appropriate for the GA to again 
> petition the Council for a working group on this topic... I am not arguing 
> that a different policy needs to be adopted, only that we should exercise our 
> right to consider this policy, and if required, submit recommendations to 
> improve upon that policy.

I think that the Names Council was right.

Just because ICANN is talking about Alt.roots does not make it within
the scope of the DNSO.

It would be inappropriate for ICANN or the DNSO to adopt any policy
with regard to alt.roots except one of leaving them alone, which
doesn't require a working group, it is the status quo.

- -- 
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: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:38:52 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC Breakdown

At 00:59 11/07/01 +0000, [email-masked] wrote:
>For those interested (I was bored) I have done a breakdown by region and
>country of the Names Council.  Despite the rules not as diverse as one would
>have expected.
>
>Regions
>
>7 - North America
>6 - Europe
>4 - Latin America
>4 - Asia-Pacific
>0 - Africa

Far more important than the country of origin, residence or citizenship of 
the NC members (or Board members for that matter) is the diversity of 
Interests that they represent.
David, perhaps you could make a different breakdown, if you are bored 
enough? :)

- -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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:52:41 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: Nomination as GA delegate for UDRP TF

Sotiris,

Thank you for the honor of the nomination.

Rod

- -----Original Message-----
From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 8:29 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Nomination as GA delegate for UDRP TF

Statement of Acceptance:
1a. Full name of the nominee: Rod Dixon
1b. E-mail address of the nominee: [email-masked]
1c. Background information about the nominee: I am an attorney and law
professor. I teach and write in the areas of Cyberlaw, intellectual
property, privacy, and employment law.  With regard to dispute resolution, I
am a trained mediator for the federal government, and have taught dispute
resolution.
1d. Statement of the nominee's objectives in the role as GA delegate to the
NC UDRP TF: I accept my nomination as a candidate to represent the GA to the
Names Council UDRP Task Force.  According to the Terms of Reference (ToR)
established by the NC’s UDRP Interim Committee, the task force is expected
to draft a survey, collect responses, and issue a summary report based upon
the survey responses and a couple of university studies.  I am unsure why
the ToR is defined so precisely.  I do not think the Interim Committee
intended to set the consensus-building goals of the task force to
data-collection.  If the goal of the task force is to broadly consider and
identify potential areas of reform for the UDRP, then I am confident that I
will loyally represent the GA toward that end.

Many of my views on the UDRP are publicly available, and I think most will
find that they faithfully represent the views of many in the GA.   From my
perspective, the protection of free expression is enormously important in
Cyberspace, and the UDRP ought to be revised to reflect this enormity.  My
specific reform proposals and critical assessments of the UDRP are contained
in some of the articles linked below.

Relevant links
Is There A Lesson For ICANN From The Presidential Election, Internet.com -
Domain Notes.com (Jan. 2001).
Domain Name Theft: When Someone Steals Sex, You Can Get It Back If It's In
Cyberspace, Internet.com - Domain Notes.com (Dec. 2000).
Before The Law: ICANN Is The Gatekeeper Of Cyberspace, Internet.com - Domain
Notes.com (Nov. 2000).
Common Names And Common Sense: Why Celebrity Names Should Not Be Subject To
The UDRP, Internet.com - Domain Notes.com (Oct. 2000).
The Arbitral Forum: Why ICANN'S Uniform Dispute Resolution Process Must
Undergo Reform, Internet.com - Domain Notes.com (Oct. 2000).
Wipo-2   (http://www.cyberspaces.org/wipo2response.html)

Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University Law School - Camden
www.cyberspaces.org
[email-masked]
- --
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 #606
************************