Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #620
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, July 18 2001           Volume 01 : Number 620

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:30:17 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for moving forward

I am with Roeland on this one.  There must be a measurement.  This is not a
seigneurial assembly...

Soitiris Sotiropoulos

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> I strongly disagree with that. That's precisely what has gotten us
> (collectively)into this mess, in the first place. I think that we need to
> record a vote, period. At least, a poll result.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 11:51 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for moving forward
> >
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> >          I think you misunderstood my earlier message (below).   My
> > suggestion wasn't that we need consensus before we can vote.
> > Rather, it
> > was that if we have consensus (as determined by the chair),
> > we don't *need*
> > to vote.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> > At 10:19 AM 7/17/2001 -0700, you wrote:
> > >I concur on the allowance of more time for discussing the issue, even
> > >though I believe it now to be a foregone conclusion, and have given
> > >my "yeah" on the poll.  However, I think there is a fundamental flaw
> > >in the thinking of just about everyone here.
> > >
> > >The premise seems to be that there must already have been reached
> > >what looks like a "consensus" approval of an Issue before
> > there can be
> > >a vote on it. If that were the case, why have the Vote? I
> > don't believe
> > >that Votes (i.e., an individual voting event, not your vote
> > or mine) are,
> > >ever have been (except here), or should be, merely a rubber stamping
> > >process on an Issue that has already been decided.  What justifies a
> > >Vote is not pre-approval of the outcome, but rather the existence of
> > >an Issue on which there has been expressed wide spread interest, and
> > >involving a matter of real substance.
> > >
> > >There will come the day when some such Issue will be roundly opposed,
> > >and the apparent "consensus" will be that whatever it is should never
> > >happen.  That circumstance would be just as proper for the
> > carrying out
> > >of a Vote as the opposite -- the people who oppose some proposition
> > >have as much right to get their views expressed definitively
> > in a Vote as
> > >do those who support any such proposition.
> > >
> > >There will be other circumstances in which the outcome of a
> > Vote could
> > >not be predicted in advance. And that, of course, is the fundamental
> > >reason why Votes are carried out in the first place. This
> > notion of only
> > >agreeing to have a Vote when it appears that the "yeahs"
> > have it is really
> > >quite a perversion of the whole concept of democracy.
> > >
> > >Bill Lovell
> > >
> > >Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> > >>On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:12:26 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> > >> >      it seems there is general agreement with the spirit
> > >> >        of Patrick's motion. Joanna Lana has raised concerns
> > >> >        about the wording, but it seems nobody has argued
> > >> >        that procedural issues /should/ be discussed on the
> > >> >        GA main list instead of GA-rules.
> > >> >        Why don't we simply agree to *follow* the rules until
> > >> >        such time when we have the resources and time to vote
> > >> >        on it and use the voting mechanism instead for those
> > >> >        issues which need to be voted on *now*? (I assume we will
> > >> >        not agree on a UDRP Task Force representative by
> > debate...)
> > >> >        So, if you agree, *DON'T* reply to this mail on the
> > >> >        main GA list:
> > >> >        [snip]
> > >>
> > >>          Since Alexander's call for quiet doesn't seem to
> > have worked . . .
> > >>I think the emphasis -- on all sides -- on taking this
> > motion to a formal
> > >>vote is misplaced.  We've so far managed to avoid a
> > knock-down, drag-out
> > >>debate on the structure and functioning of the ga (should
> > it act like an
> > >>IETF working group? like a national parliament?), but it
> > seems to me that
> > >>in general, it's the job of the Chair to determine when the
> > group has
> > >>reached rough consensus on a matter like this one, so that
> > we can move
> > >>on.  The choice of exactly how he makes the determination
> > should be largely
> > >>up to him (straw votes can be helpful sometimes, but other times
> > >>not).  This motion has only been on the mailing list for a
> > couple of days
> > >>now, which is too soon to make a judgment of rough
> > consensus. Once a week
> > >>has gone by, though, if the "hum" remains as one-sided as
> > it's been so far,
> > >>I think it would be fully appropriate for Danny to conclude that the
> > >>proposal is adopted by rough consensus.
> > >>
> > >>Jon
> > >>
> > >>--
> > >>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>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/>http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> > >GLOSSARY:
> > ><http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm>http://www.icann.o
> rg/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
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:35:49 -0400
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [private]  Asking, nay Begging, for Support

The following motion makes sense to me.
I apologize for not being able to follow this debate
closely. But it does seem necessary to channel
discussion and to take full advantage of the sublists.
- --Milton Mueller

¯-------
(1)    The [ga] mailing list is reserved for substantive issues relating to
DNS policy.  All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures,
etc. is to be conducted on the [ga-rules] mailing list   Subscribers to
[ga-rules] may, by consensus or other prescribed procedures, refer issues
to the full General Assembly for a determinative ballot.

(2)    The list rules are amended to include the exact wording of (1) above.

Note:  For the purposes of this motion, the term "prescribed procedures"
refers to procedures which have been adopted by the General Assembly.

As Alternate Chair I submit this motion to you, as Chair, for your
consideration.  As I understand the current procedures, the Chair is
required to accept or reject the motion.

I also understand that the DNSO Secretariat may not have the resources
immediately available to conduct the vote.  Should this be the case, I
would appreciate your personal acceptance of the proposed policy.

Best regards
Patrick

- --
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, 17 Jul 2001 14:43:00 -0700
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion Accepted

Patrick Corliss writes:
 > On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 01:33:50 EDT, Danny Younger wrote:
 > 
 > > I have no objection to accepting the motion that you have proposed.
 > > At some point our Secretariat will advise when it is ready to once more
 > > support the activities of the General Assembly.  Perhaps we might be
 > > able to conclude a vote on this motion by early October (according to
 > > the most recent timetable put forth).  In the meantime, you may wish to
 > > get a "sense of the GA" on this topic through a poll.
 > 
 > Thank you for your support and your comments.  By my count, there are
 > 18 declared supporters for the present proposal:

This is a complete farce.  According to the DNSO web site, there are
currently 336 names in the voting registry of the DNSO.  There is
absolutely no way that you can count 18 as a consensus.  I call it a
coup d'etat.

The only proper place for official discussion of the rules by which the
ga list operates is on the ga list.  All other lists are unofficial and
informal until such time as an actual vote of the ga takes place.

/Joe
- --
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, 17 Jul 2001 15:39:31 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Questions for the next ICANN Board Director

I appreciate what's being said here, but how a query as to how a candidate
feels about this or that issue, the answer (if any) to which would be used as
some kind of basis for deciding whether or not to vote for that candidate,
could be anything but a political statement is quite beyond me. What's involved
here, methinks, is the loading of the question with a bunch of hype, and that,
I agree, should be avoided.

Bill Lovell

Ken Stubbs wrote:

> so far the concept of presenting questions to prospective board members has
> been a credible endeavor.
>
> the one suggestion i would make is that any question posed be just that ....
> a question and not some sort of cleverly disguised political statement ..
>
> ken stubbs
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 9:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Questions for the next ICANN Board Director
>
> > 1) To what extent would you seek to ensure that the "open," "bottom-up"
> >     mode of operation of ICANN, in which the participation of the General
> >     Assembly in forming recommendations and suggestions to the Board of
> >     Directors is a part, and which mode is set out in the Articles that
> govern
> >     ICANN and in the agreement with the USG, would be honored and
> >     implemented?
> >
> > Bill Lovell
> >
> > [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > > It will soon be time for the DNSO to nominate a Board Director.  If we
> seek
> > > to have a Director that has an affinity for the General Assembly, it
> might be
> > > prudent for us to begin preparing a list of questions to pose to the
> > > candidates for such office.  If each of you can pose one question, we
> could
> > > rapidly compile a list of interrogatives that reflects the concerns of
> this
> > > Assembly.   If possible, we might also arrange for a debate between the
> > > candidates in Montevideo as part of the General Assembly session... Let
> me
> > > know your thoughts, better yet, let me know your questions.
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion Accepted

On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Joe Kelsey wrote:

> This is a complete farce.  According to the DNSO web site, there are
> currently 336 names in the voting registry of the DNSO.  There is
> absolutely no way that you can count 18 as a consensus.  I call it a
> coup d'etat.

People are free to voice their opinions or not. In the light of the
overwhelming majority of support for Patrick Corliss's proposal from
respondents this indicates that either those that are not voicing an
opinion are happy with the consensus to date, or that they don't care
enough one way or the other.

In any case it doesn't invalidate the mechanism or necessitate that
everyone vote(assuming they are afforded an equitable opportunity to do
so) for the results to be valid, your objections to those results
nonwithstanding.

I personally think that the sublists are an unecessary invention created
to address the arbitrary posting limit which is the real source of the
problem,  however I don't feel strongly enough about their existence
to "vote" no, or claim that 336 people need to explictly respond before we
can get on with the real work at hand.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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, 17 Jul 2001 18:40:30 -0400
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Questions for the next ICANN Board Director

thats what i was referring to ... you and i are in complete agreement

> What's involved
> here, methinks, is the loading of the question with a bunch of hype, and
that,
> I agree, should be avoided.
>
> Bill Lovell
>

- --
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, 17 Jul 2001 16:21:13 -0700
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Consensus

There seems to be a lot of different definitions of the word consensus
floating around.  The "chairs" seem to think that it means 18 out of
336.  Mr. Weinberg seems to think that it means simply the voice of the
chairperson.

Amongst standard-setting bodies (ANSI, IETF, ISO) consensus generally
means one of two things: either nearly unanimous support or, failing
unanimity, no serious objections (i.e., only minor, technical details
standing in the way of unanimity).

Among other bodies, consensus can mean whatever the body decides it
should mean, as long as the definition is arrived at through the
established channels of debate and agreement.  Thus, the GA is free to
define consensus to mean 18 of 336 as long as the agreement is reached
through the normal rules for the GA.  Mr. Corliss is attempting to
insert a new definition of the rules by completely bypassing the normal
procedures of the GA and installing his own ideas simply because he
perceives himself to have the power to do so.  I object strenuously to
Mr. Corliss' attempt to make and "end-run" around the established
procedures of this body and set up his own private world view without a
fight.

I have posted previously that I see that the so-called "sub-lists" serve
the general purpose of informal discussion groups, and I think this is a
valuable service.  I strongly object to anyone attempting to change the
status of these informal discussions to a formal one simply by fiat.
This is supposed to be a world-wide, general consensus group and action
by fiat has absolutely nothing to do with consensus and everything to do
with dictatorship.

Once again, there can be no formal, binding discussion of anything on
the so-called "ga-rules" discussion list unless and until the formal
process of the GA is carried through and a vote has occurred on the
matter.  Until such time, anyone is free to discuss anything that they
want on any one of the so-called "sub-lists", and it will have no effect
on the business of the GA.  Whenever the discussion participants feel
that they have discussed something enough, they are free to bring their
efforts to the attention of the GA, just as any informal discussion
among andy parliamentary body may do so.

/Joe
- --
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, 17 Jul 2001 20:02:41 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Call for List Monitor Volunteers

It appears that several other public lists are experiencing difficulties 
similar to those that we in the GA have encountered...

Posted Sunday on ICANNWatch:  For about the past month, we've been noticing a 
bunch of comments posted to ICANNWatch that are off-topic, incoherent or just 
plain trolls. This is causing us to wonder about moving to institute some 
moderation by the editors. 

Posted Today on ALSC Forum:  Reminder -- "Terms of Use for the ALSC Forum 
List" can be found at
http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum_aup.shtml.  Your mailing list privileges 
will be revoked if you repeatedly post off-topic messages.

As we are now down to two list monitors, and as it is reasonable to attempt 
to lighten their individual loads, I am putting out a call for volunteers for 
list monitor duty.  I seek to add only one more list monitor at this time.   
Please post your interest to [email-masked]    

A final selection will be made by the end of the month.
- --
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, 17 Jul 2001 10:21:41 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed within the SRS

Does this mean that the VeriSign-NetSol link will also be limited to 250
connections and 256 K ?

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Alexander Svensson
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 5:25 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed within
the SRS

"VeriSign Registry proposed that, as an interim measure, it would place
a uniform limit of 250 simultaneous connections and 256k bandwidth
applied to each accredited registrar." 

http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr16jul01.htm

ICANN Advisory
Equitable Allocation of Shared Registration System Resources

(

- --
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, 17 Jul 2001 21:24:46 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed within  the SRS

Yes.  All registrars are treated the same.

Chuck Gomes

- -----Original Message-----
From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 10:22 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: 'Alexander Svensson'
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed
within the SRS

Does this mean that the VeriSign-NetSol link will also be limited to 250
connections and 256 K ?

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Alexander Svensson
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 5:25 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed within
the SRS

"VeriSign Registry proposed that, as an interim measure, it would place
a uniform limit of 250 simultaneous connections and 256k bandwidth
applied to each accredited registrar." 

http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr16jul01.htm

ICANN Advisory
Equitable Allocation of Shared Registration System Resources

(

- --
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, 17 Jul 2001 21:52:23 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus

At 04:21 PM 7/17/2001 -0700, Joe Kelsey wrote:
>There seems to be a lot of different definitions of the word consensus
>floating around.  The "chairs" seem to think that it means 18 out of
>336.  Mr. Weinberg seems to think that it means simply the voice of the
>chairperson.
>Amongst standard-setting bodies (ANSI, IETF, ISO) consensus generally
>means one of two things: either nearly unanimous support or, failing
>unanimity, no serious objections (i.e., only minor, technical details
>standing in the way of unanimity).

         For my own part, I think it would be desirable if we could follow 
the IETF approach Joe Kelsey cites.  Here's the relevant language from RFC 
2418 (IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures):

>    Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process.
>    IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although
>    this is, of course, preferred.  In general, the dominant view of the
>    working group shall prevail.  (However, it must be noted that
>    "dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or
>    persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement.) Consensus
>    can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on
>    which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course).  Note that 51%
>    of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is
>    better than rough.  It is up to the Chair to determine if rough
>    consensus has been reached.
>    [snip]
>    [W]here the discussion has been held entirely over
>    the mailing list[, t]he determination of the level of consensus may be
>    harder to do . . . since most people subscribed to mailing
>    lists do not actively participate in discussions on the list. It is
>    left to the discretion of the working group chair how to evaluate the
>    level of consensus.  The most common method used is for the working
>    group chair to state what he or she believes to be the consensus view
>    and. at the same time, requests comments from the list about the
>    stated conclusion.

         To repeat: the most common method for determining consensus, under 
RFC 2418, is for the chair to state what he believes to be the consensus 
view and to request comments about that judgment from the list.  On the 
basis of the comments people make in response, he can determine whether the 
proposition is in fact supported by rough consensus.  It had seemed to me 
that that would be useful here:  On a housekeeping matter such as this one, 
if over a period of a week or so the comments are overwhelmingly in favor 
of the proposition (as they have been so far), it is a remarkably 
profligate use of resources to request that the DNSO Secretariat hold a 
formal, fancy vote to confirm that consensus.

         It's true that this approach does require that somebody have the 
job of deciding whether consensus is in fact present; RFC 2418 assigns that 
job to the chair.  It may be that in the current environment of the GA, 
folks don't trust anyone, including the chair, to perform that function -- 
so they're demanding formal votes for everything.  But that has a 
cost.  Holding elaborate votes, on questions that aren't much in dispute, 
consumes a lot of resources.

Jon

- --
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, 17 Jul 2001 21:51:19 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed within  the SRS

There is no violation of our agreements with ICANN.  In fact, it is the
equivalent access requirements of the agreements that makes the problem more
difficult to solve and this step was designed to ensure continued equivalent
access for all registrars.

BTW, I suspect that the measure is not nearly as drastic as you may think.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 9:44 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: 'Peter de Blanc'; [email-masked]; 'Alexander Svensson'
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed
within the SRS

Mr. Gomes,

Will this work?  You must know exactly what is causing the problem to invoke
such a drastic measure. What is the exact problem?  Is this a violation of
your contract with ICANN (albeit probably justified and righteous)?

Thanks ahead of time for your thoughtful response,
Eric

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

> Yes.  All registrars are treated the same.
>
> Chuck Gomes
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 10:22 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: 'Alexander Svensson'
> Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed
> within the SRS
>
> Does this mean that the VeriSign-NetSol link will also be limited to 250
> connections and 256 K ?
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Alexander Svensson
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 5:25 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed within
> the SRS
>
> "VeriSign Registry proposed that, as an interim measure, it would place
> a uniform limit of 250 simultaneous connections and 256k bandwidth
> applied to each accredited registrar."
>
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr16jul01.htm
>
> ICANN Advisory
> Equitable Allocation of Shared Registration System Resources
>
> (
>
> --
> 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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:46:35 -0700
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus

Jonathan Weinberg writes:
 >          For my own part, I think it would be desirable if we could follow 
 > the IETF approach Joe Kelsey cites.  Here's the relevant language from RFC 
 > 2418 (IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures):

I would be tempted to agree with you about adopting the IETF approach,
except for the fact that it does not apply in this particular
situation.  I do not know whether or not is is better to choose an
"easy" consensus or a "hard" consensus, but this is definitely a "hard"
consensus.  The vehemence of opposition is such that there are clearly
major problems with achieving a "rough" consensus here.  Both myself and
others have expressed grave doubts about both the method of forcing this
so-called consensus on the "rules" through the GA and with the actual
proposal (vague as it is).

I fully support the IETF model, but we are very far from that model at
this point in time.  You have cited pretty words about some vague
comments on the idea of "rough" consensus, but we are in dire need of
exact procedures at this moment in time in order to resolve this dispute
and move forward.  Vague, "rough" consensus will not serve us here.
Only a vote will.

/Joe
- --
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, 18 Jul 2001 01:12:10 -0700
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Interesting Mechanism - Re: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be  Deployed within the SRS

VeriSign's deployment of a Bandwidth and Session Limits mechanism is
interesting.

All Registrars are not the same, however, they will be treated the same.  There
are large Registrars and small Registrars.  There are Registrars who use the SRS
for registering domain names and others who may be involved in abuse activity.
It would seem that VeriSign is capable of identifying and defining the source of
problems concerning Registrars engaged in abuse activity.

The subject mechanism on one hand appears to benefit the small Registrars by
inhibiting the large Registrar's access to the SRS.  However, on the other hand,
it also appears that the mechanism will control small Registrars by preventing
them from engaging activity described as abuse.  Large Registrars in the domain
name industry will not need to engage in any kind of abuse activity if the small
Registrars are limited in this capacity.

Now, what is abuse activity?

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

> There is no violation of our agreements with ICANN.  In fact, it is the
> equivalent access requirements of the agreements that makes the problem more
> difficult to solve and this step was designed to ensure continued equivalent
> access for all registrars.
>
> BTW, I suspect that the measure is not nearly as drastic as you may think.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 9:44 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: 'Peter de Blanc'; [email-masked]; 'Alexander Svensson'
> Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed
> within the SRS
>
> Mr. Gomes,
>
> Will this work?  You must know exactly what is causing the problem to invoke
> such a drastic measure. What is the exact problem?  Is this a violation of
> your contract with ICANN (albeit probably justified and righteous)?
>
> Thanks ahead of time for your thoughtful response,
> Eric
>
> "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
>
> > Yes.  All registrars are treated the same.
> >
> > Chuck Gomes
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 10:22 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: 'Alexander Svensson'
> > Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed
> > within the SRS
> >
> > Does this mean that the VeriSign-NetSol link will also be limited to 250
> > connections and 256 K ?
> >
> > Peter de Blanc
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> > Alexander Svensson
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 5:25 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed within
> > the SRS
> >
> > "VeriSign Registry proposed that, as an interim measure, it would place
> > a uniform limit of 250 simultaneous connections and 256k bandwidth
> > applied to each accredited registrar."
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr16jul01.htm
> >
> > ICANN Advisory
> > Equitable Allocation of Shared Registration System Resources
> >
> > (
> >
> > --
> > 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-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:37:57 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed within the SRS

On 16:21 17/07/01, Peter de Blanc said:
>Does this mean that the VeriSign-NetSol link will also be limited to 250
>connections and 256 K ?
>Peter de Blanc

Additional question: when the same group owns several accredited Registrars.
Is "crossbandwidthing" controlled?
Jefsey

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
>Alexander Svensson
>Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 5:25 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed within
>the SRS
>
>"VeriSign Registry proposed that, as an interim measure, it would place
>a uniform limit of 250 simultaneous connections and 256k bandwidth
>applied to each accredited registrar."
>
>http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr16jul01.htm
>
>ICANN Advisory
>Equitable Allocation of Shared Registration System Resources
>
>(
>
>--
>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: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 16:00:41 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Interesting Mechanism - Re: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be  Deployed within the SRS

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, at 01:12 [=GMT-0700], Derek Conant wrote:

> VeriSign's deployment of a Bandwidth and Session Limits mechanism is
> interesting.
> 
> All Registrars are not the same, however, they will be treated the same.  There
> are large Registrars and small Registrars.  There are Registrars who use the SRS
> for registering domain names and others who may be involved in abuse activity.
> It would seem that VeriSign is capable of identifying and defining the source of
> problems concerning Registrars engaged in abuse activity.

What is abuse activity? Trying very hard to register a name the moment
it drops? A lot of people try that, some with success. Today I got
bsdunix.com as well as rootservice.net. I did not get nameguide.com or
yul.com. Three letter names (any) are grabbed by people on good
connections and with bomb scripts.

There are registrars (ICANN accredited) that even have a special
website for getting expired names, where one can bid on a name.
las.com, which expired a few days back did as much as $2,500.00 on one
of those. This snap up site did not get it though :-) No, it was not
snapnames.

There are registrars that are SELLING access at the rush hour... What
does this all mean? ICANN seems to be reconsidering the policies of
first come first serve. Well, they approved a lottery for .biz (buy as
many tickets as you like, we don't mind, the more the better, yeah). I
would not be surprised if ICANN would set up something that only
benefits the big money people for expired domains. All fine with
me. It is a cartel anyway. Either you find enough money to buy
yourself into it, or you fight it. Or you sit in a corner and cry
reading some poetry.

Now, I will stop being rhetorical, and get practical. What if someone
really wants a name that expires badly? At present there is no way to
be certain that you can get it. Not snapnames or any other site, as
far as I know. It is a matter of luck. I know, I am into this. So do
we want this situation? I think that is the question.

By the way, I did not notice any difference at the rush hour today. My
impression is not that Verisign is handling this in any 'bad' way.

- -- 
[email-masked]

> The subject mechanism on one hand appears to benefit the small Registrars by
> inhibiting the large Registrar's access to the SRS.  However, on the other hand,
> it also appears that the mechanism will control small Registrars by preventing
> them from engaging activity described as abuse.  Large Registrars in the domain
> name industry will not need to engage in any kind of abuse activity if the small
> Registrars are limited in this capacity.
> 
> Now, what is abuse activity?
> 
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
> 
> "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> 
> > There is no violation of our agreements with ICANN.  In fact, it is the
> > equivalent access requirements of the agreements that makes the problem more
> > difficult to solve and this step was designed to ensure continued equivalent
> > access for all registrars.
> >
> > BTW, I suspect that the measure is not nearly as drastic as you may think.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 9:44 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > Cc: 'Peter de Blanc'; [email-masked]; 'Alexander Svensson'
> > Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed
> > within the SRS
> >
> > Mr. Gomes,
> >
> > Will this work?  You must know exactly what is causing the problem to invoke
> > such a drastic measure. What is the exact problem?  Is this a violation of
> > your contract with ICANN (albeit probably justified and righteous)?
> >
> > Thanks ahead of time for your thoughtful response,
> > Eric
> >
> > "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> >
> > > Yes.  All registrars are treated the same.
> > >
> > > Chuck Gomes
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 10:22 AM
> > > To: [email-masked]
> > > Cc: 'Alexander Svensson'
> > > Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed
> > > within the SRS
> > >
> > > Does this mean that the VeriSign-NetSol link will also be limited to 250
> > > connections and 256 K ?
> > >
> > > Peter de Blanc
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> > > Alexander Svensson
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 5:25 AM
> > > To: [email-masked]
> > > Subject: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed within
> > > the SRS
> > >
> > > "VeriSign Registry proposed that, as an interim measure, it would place
> > > a uniform limit of 250 simultaneous connections and 256k bandwidth
> > > applied to each accredited registrar."
> > >
> > > http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr16jul01.htm
> > >
> > > ICANN Advisory
> > > Equitable Allocation of Shared Registration System Resources
> > >
> > > (
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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-full" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #620
************************