Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #621
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, July 19 2001           Volume 01 : Number 621

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:58:00 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed within the SRS

I don't think a registry could survive with such a small amount of 
throughput to the source.  I would think that by now NSI would be running 
with OC-12s or 48s and the smallest connection to them would be no less 
than a DS-1 for each registrar.

How sad...

At 10:37 AM 7/18/2001 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>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

- --
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 16:42:00 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed  within the SRS

The problem is not bandwidth of course. It is about monopolizing the
registry database. The limit is to avoid that.

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, at 08:58 [=GMT-0700], Kristy McKee wrote:

> 
> I don't think a registry could survive with such a small amount of 
> throughput to the source.  I would think that by now NSI would be running 
> with OC-12s or 48s and the smallest connection to them would be no less 
> than a DS-1 for each registrar.
> 
> How sad...
> 
> 
> At 10:37 AM 7/18/2001 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >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
> 
> --
> 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 09:43:09 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed  within the SRS

I am pleased to see them fairly balancing the load.  This does not surprise 
me at all.  I am and have been a supporter of NSI for a long time...

:)

At 04:42 PM 7/18/2001 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>The problem is not bandwidth of course. It is about monopolizing the
>registry database. The limit is to avoid that.
>
>On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, at 08:58 [=GMT-0700], Kristy McKee wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't think a registry could survive with such a small amount of
> > throughput to the source.  I would think that by now NSI would be running
> > with OC-12s or 48s and the smallest connection to them would be no less
> > than a DS-1 for each registrar.
> >
> > How sad...
> >
> >
> > At 10:37 AM 7/18/2001 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > >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
> >
> > --
> > 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 11:17:50 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus

At 07:46 PM 7/17/2001 -0700, Joe Kelsey wrote:
[snip]
>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).

         Well, actually, near as I can tell, you and to a lesser extent 
Jason Graff are the *only* people who have argued against the merits of the 
motion (though Joanna Lane proposed a wording change); among those who have 
posted, the rough consensus on the merits seems apparent.

         The procedural matter is another thing.  A variety of folks have 
urged that we need to have a formal vote here.  (Joanna has suggested "an 
informal POLL" on ga-rules "whether to continue the process through to the 
stage where we can definitively say the wording is agreed, then forward to 
the DNSO Secretariat to wait in a queue for a VOTE, or we can defer all 
further DEBATE until such time as a VOTE can be taken, knowing that it will 
still require a further 2 weeks prior to a VOTE of the entire GA" (caps in 
original).)  It may be that, given the current state of the ga, we just 
can't follow the "rough consensus" approach of RFC 2418; that the members 
will not recognize any informal decision as legitimate, so that nothing can 
be decided without the full trappings of a full-scale, formal vote.  If so, 
I think it's a shame, though -- it's testimony to the dysfunctionality of 
this body, and yet another obstacle to accomplishing any actual work.

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: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:34:54 -0400
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] what if they had a party and no one came ?

i totally agree with the principles jonathan is presenting here..

i am rapidly coming to the conclusion that this group has bent over so far
backward to accomodate & placate each & every participant that it is
becoming totally "dysfunctional".

there is so much distrust & "posturing" amongst many of the participants
that the ga has literally "ground to a halt..."

just look at the last 500 e-mails and you find my assertions to be the
case...

your getting pleas from all sides of  to "move on" and yet here the ga
stands with its feet stuck in quicksand

i am not necessarily on the same side with some of you on some of the
perspectives and issues presented here by i do share commonality on others
and would like to see substantive movement on those (i.e. individual
constituancy)..

if all the ga is interested in doing is arguing, posturing, positioning
amongst each other and "talking to hear themselves",  then i wil just say
"to hell with it" and try to find other venues to work within on issues like
those i have advocated and supported here !

i promise you that i am by no means the only person who shares this opinion
!!

well...it's, collectively, "your call" people

regards,

ken stubbs

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Weinberg" <[email-masked]>
To: "Joe Kelsey" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus

> At 07:46 PM 7/17/2001 -0700, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> [snip]
> >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).
>
>
>          Well, actually, near as I can tell, you and to a lesser extent
> Jason Graff are the *only* people who have argued against the merits of
the
> motion (though Joanna Lane proposed a wording change); among those who
have
> posted, the rough consensus on the merits seems apparent.
>
>          The procedural matter is another thing.  A variety of folks have
> urged that we need to have a formal vote here.  (Joanna has suggested "an
> informal POLL" on ga-rules "whether to continue the process through to the
> stage where we can definitively say the wording is agreed, then forward to
> the DNSO Secretariat to wait in a queue for a VOTE, or we can defer all
> further DEBATE until such time as a VOTE can be taken, knowing that it
will
> still require a further 2 weeks prior to a VOTE of the entire GA" (caps in
> original).)  It may be that, given the current state of the ga, we just
> can't follow the "rough consensus" approach of RFC 2418; that the members
> will not recognize any informal decision as legitimate, so that nothing
can
> be decided without the full trappings of a full-scale, formal vote.  If
so,
> I think it's a shame, though -- it's testimony to the dysfunctionality of
> this body, and yet another obstacle to accomplishing any actual work.
>
> 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
>
>

- --
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 11:28:02 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed    within the SRS

At 9:43 am -0700 7/18/01, Kristy McKee wrote:
>I am pleased to see them fairly balancing the load.

But is it fairly balanced?

If the bigger registrars are using more than 256k and 250 connections
during peak times of their normal operations, they're still being shafted.
And the specialist registrars that only start up for the drops then close
down again are now guaranteed the same bandwidth as big registrars such as
NSI and Tucows.

I would have thought the obvious things to do would be to average each
registrars bandwidth and connection usage over the 23.5 hours of a day that
the drop _isn't_ happening. and allow them that much bandwidth and
connections during the drop period.

That might fit the "equal access" requirement, and they're "equalling"
their non-drop access. :^)

Or perhaps Verisign should just modify their system so the drops occur
randomly during the day, as a load balancing measure?

- -- 
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: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 20:37:17 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed    within the SRS

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, at 11:28 [=GMT-0500], Andy Gardner wrote:

> Or perhaps Verisign should just modify their system so the drops occur
> randomly during the day, as a load balancing measure?

This is a joke, right? Then they would have the load 24/7. 

- -- 
[email-masked]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
 http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 16:26:53 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] observations from the peanut gallery

Very well, we've come to a situation where each of us must reflect on the
nature and purpose of our participation in the General Assembly.  What exactly
are we doing here?

I am not here to nitpick.  I am unsure if a mandatory pigeon-holing is the
answer (sounds like a rather Procrustean measure to me..).  On the other hand,
I do agree that the purpose of the GA is not therapeutic.  As it stands, there
are obviously disruptive influences which would impede the achievement of work
in this assembly.  One question I think we should ask is: Why?  Aside from the
common accusations, are there perhaps other reasons?  Speaking for myself, I
don't see a huge problem in subscribing to ga-rules for any discussion of
assembly procedures.  However, there is still the question of the rule-making
mechanism, which remains in the minds of individuals who maintain their right
to think for themselves.  After all, this motion is not simply about moving
the discussion from one place to another, or even limiting/suppressing it.
This motion has much more to do with how the GA goes about making decisions,
than is readily apparent.  Since there is no clearly defined decision making
process (or mechanism) in the GA, one can well understand how some people can
have a problem with the whole matter (especially those darned democratic
idealists...<wink>).

I think it is always better to encourage than to dictate.  Therefore, I don't
like the wording of the current "motion" that Patrick Corliss is championing.
In addition, I recognize that the issue is not simply about "where do we talk
about what", and I really don't see the harm in a public show of hands where
an ISSUE has generated enough interest to stimulate an officially "unofficial"
straw poll.  In fact, I think we ought to sanction a vote procedure of one
kind or another (specifically), as the stated decision-making
procedure/mechanism of the GA.  The current "rough consensus model of the
IETF" cannot be applied to matters of policy.  The DNSO is not a body that
deals with TECHNICAL issues, but rather, political and legal.  Last time I
checked, they still vote in democratic nations, both for elections and in
juries.  I am more than a little suspicious of ex cathedra decisions and
motions.  Chairs should not be pushing motions.

So, although I understand the desire to move the motion forward (and I am
desperately curious to see what the "substantive" issues to be henceforth
discussed on the main GA list will be), I wish to make it clear that all
support for the current motion is through a VOTE COUNT and *not* consensus.
Further, that it is a reckoning based on a small fraction of actual GA
subscribers.  I hope that in the future, there will be no opposition to such
VOTE COUNTS from the current selection of YEA-sayers...  Lastly, I wish to
state for the record that the carrying of this motion through the current
"process" will establish a precedent for the implementation of motions into
rules via a VOTE of participants, pure and simple.  My one follow-up question
is:  Assuming that there is opposition to this "motion", what would be the
necessary margin of victory?  50+1? 67%? what exactly?  Perhaps the Chair or
Alt-Chair would care to respond?

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 15:04:56 -0700
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus

Joop Teernstra writes:
 > The IETF model clearly ranks "vehemence" of opposition  in the same 
 > category as "dominance" by way of volume. (=without consequence)
 > In other words: Persuade, don't bully.

You can deliberately misconstrue my words all day.  The point is that
everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that any attempt by the "chairs"
or anyone else to move a germain topic of discussion off the GA list is
patently against the current rules.

First, change the current rules using the current process.  Then you
have a new process and new rules.  You cannot change the current rules
by fiat.

/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: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:06:06 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Substantive Issues

Everyone here is making an assumption that discussion of the rules of
order on the list is not a "substantive issue" or that it is somehow not
germaine to the business of the GA.

I want to make the point that there is no more substantive issue
relating to the business of the GA than the rules under which the
discussion list operates.  It is the absolutely most fundamental and
germaine issue with which the list can deal.

I also accept as fact that the GA as a body can pass a rule which
delegates a specific germaine issue to an officially sanctioned
sub-discussion list.  This is a given in the normal parliamentary
proceedings.  However, there has been no such official delegation and
until such an official delegation is made by the GA itself, there can be
no official discussion on any so-called "sub-list".  You can carry out
as much informal discussion as you want whereever you want, but as soon
as you want to do anything affecting the operation of the GA discussion
list, you have to present it to the GA as a whole for discussion.

That means that the members of the "rules" discussion can talk and
scheme all they want, but they cannot make their discussion somehow
off-topic to the GA as a whole until and unless the GA as a whole
considers it formally in discussion and voting.

My entire point, which everyone seems to be missing, is that any attempt
to move the discussion of germaine subject matter elsewhere without
formal recognition by the GA as a whole is completely wrong-headed and
against the rules.

I can discuss the rules of operation of the GA on the GA list all I want
until there is a formal vote to create a separate rules subcommittee, or
until the NC create a formal rules WG.

/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 20:05:53 -0400
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Substantive Issues

you can do anything you want to  joe...

my guess is that before too long your going to be preaching to an empty room
!!

regards

ken stubbs

> I can discuss the rules of operation of the GA on the GA list all I want
> until there is a formal vote to create a separate rules subcommittee, or
> until the NC create a formal rules WG.
>
> /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 20:07:05 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Observations from the Peanut Gallery

Sotiris has asked for a response regarding the necessary margin of victory 
needed to pass the motion put forth by Patrick Corliss.  Our rules state:  
"In the case where the question is a new rule or rule change for the GA, the 
number of votes in favour of the winning alternative must be at least 2/3 of 
cast votes, with a minimum number of cast votes being the lower of 20% of the 
registered voters or 100 votes."  
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html

As the motion calls for amending the current rules, this is not a matter over 
which the Chair may declare "rough consensus"; a vote is required if we are 
going to have our existing rules changed.   

If enough members indicate through their discussion that such a change should 
be considered, then the Chair has reasonable cause to accept the motion as a 
ballot question.  This does not imply either agreement or disagreement with 
the motion; it is simply a decision to let the Assembly, after sufficient 
discussion, come to their own conclusion through the voting process.  

I agree with Sotiris' observation that, "As it stands, there are obviously 
disruptive influences which would impede the achievement of work in this 
assembly."    A good example of such diversionary efforts may be noted in a 
post to our list today from a Names Council member that represents the 
Registrars constituency.  In his comments, Mr. Stubbs noted that he would 
like to see substantive movement on matters such as, for example, 
individuals' constituency... 

Those of us that paid attention to the discussions of the Board in Stockholm 
noted that the ICANN Board explicitly referred the matter of an individuals' 
constituency to the Names Council for resolution.   I have yet to see Mr. 
Stubbs acting to push this issue through the Council.  As yet, the Names 
Council Review Task Force has not published their Terms of Reference, has not 
established an archived mailing list, and has not begun its work on the 
promised "web-based forum".  Attempting to shift discussion on this topic 
once more to the GA, after we already voted by a margin in excess of 80% to 
support the creation of such a constituency, is purely diversionary, and 
serves to do no more than to attempt to distract us from the fact that the 
Council has been sitting on this topic since March, and has done nothing. 

Mr. Stubbs has indicated that unless the GA stops "talking to hear 
themselves", he will try to find other venues to work within on issues like 
those he has advocated and supported here... excellent idea.  He may wish to 
begin by using the Names Council as the appropriate venue to pave the way for 
an individuals' constituency.  He may also wish to prod the registrars to 
deal with formulating policies regarding Code of Conduct, Best Practices, 
Warehousing, Speculation, Transfers, Expired Domains, etc.

Consider the following excerpt from the Core Secretariat to the registrars 
list:

- - Verisign uses loopholes in the transfer rule it has written itself
  in its registry role
- - The auto-nack policy hurts precisely those registrars who abide by the 
  prior documentation rule
- - Verisign causes large numbers of domains to expire by rejecting
  transfers, thereafter refuses to transfer invoking "non paid" status
- - Many transfers are rejected despite confirmation, or no confirmation 
  request is sent
- - Most of the domain names involved are legacy registrations
- - A number of facts leave little credibility to a "customer protection" 
  motive:
  -- Verisign's time to confirm is unreasonably short
  -- Verisign's confirmation method unreasonably cumbersome
  -- Verisign's confirmation requests are difficult to understand, 
     difficult to tell from spam 
  -- Verisign generates additional revenue with the auto-nack policy
  -- Verisign has not caused less erroneous transfers than other registrars
     in proportion to the number of transferring customers
- - Verisign clearly has a dominant market position 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00821.html

There are issues in front of us that the registrars community should be 
bringing to the Council.   Even Louis Touton has written to the Council 
suggesting "the DNSO may wish to begin consideration of possible development 
of a policy for handling expiring names."  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00657.html

And yet a Names Council representative berates the GA for not attending to 
substantive matters.  At least we are discussing "Bandwidth and Session 
Limits to be Deployed within the SRS" to a degree far greater than it has 
been discussed by the registrars or by the Council.  At least we have raised 
the issue of expired domains, a Registrants' Bill of Rights, etc.  What has 
the Council done?  The GA has been developing questions to pose to the Board 
candidates; the Council can't even decide on a date for their own vote.  The 
GA has noted the lack of Secretariat resources which hamper our ability to 
vote --  a substantive issue.  The GA has already voted to request that the 
ICANN Board fund the DNSO; the Council merely decided to deny voting rights 
to constituencies that couldn't pay.  Members of the GA have prepared a BEST 
PRACTICES document to improve the efficiency of our organization, and members 
of this Assembly (myself included) have posted requests to the NC Intake 
Committee dealing with substantive matters... when was the last time that an 
NC member put a new item on the NC agenda through the Intake Committee?  

At least we work on a daily basis... perhaps the Council and its 
representatives could consider convening more often so that the DNSO actually 
has a chance to get some meaningful work accomplished.  Complaints about our 
lack of progress at a time when there has been almost no progress on multiple 
Council initiatives is disingenuous and diversionary.  If we need the time to 
fully debate a proposed motion on our own rules, and even if it takes 500 
posts to do so, then we will have our comments noted -- if this annoys an NC 
member, too bad...  The GA is making forward progress.  We have already 
started nominating candidates for the ICANN Board position, and we will be 
happy to sponsor a candidates debate in Montevideo.  Soon we will have 
another elected representative to a Council task force, and doubtless we will 
bring bring other issues to the attention of the Council (as it appears that 
the registrar constituency seems to be reluctant to do so).

I am proud of the efforts of the membership, and consider remarks to the 
contrary by Council members to be just another diversion.  Keep in mind that 
the ALSC will soon be putting forth restructuring recommendations... a 
"dysfunctional" Council will probably be the first institution to fall into 
the recycling bin.  The GA is on track.  Keep up the good work.

  
- --
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: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 13:31:16 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Voluntary Compliance

The following motion has significant support within this Assembly
and a vote is being organised to validate its intent.  Meanwhile I would
ask all members to voluntarily comply:

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.

Those who are not subscribed to the [ga-rules] list may do so by sending
an email to [email-masked] with the following words in the text part
of the message:

subscribe ga-rules

Let's build confidence in the DNSO General Assembly as an effective place to
achieve DNS policy outcomes rather than a discussion group on procedural
issues ;-)

Thank you
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: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 23:10:54 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] observations from the peanut gallery

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Very well, we've come to a situation where each of us must reflect on the
> nature and purpose of our participation in the General Assembly.  What exactly
> are we doing here?

Thank you, Sotiris.  It is precisely for that reason, as stated by Socrates, that
one
must "Know Thyself."  I've suggested that the General Assembly create for itself
its own web page, in which it could spell out what it was all about, and Danny
Younger was kind enough not only to support the idea but immediately to create
such a site. No matter that his content is different from what I had in mind -- my

idea being that the members of the GA should themselves express their own
concept and vision of what the GA is all about -- constrained, of course, by the
mandate that the DNSO is the Domain Name Supporting Organization, and the
GA is a part thereof. Just how is it, then, that the GA can provide such support?

It would be extremely helpful to all of us if those of a literary bent would speak

out, here, and tell us: "This is what the GA is, this is what we do, and this is
how
we do it."  It is that kind of description that would not only tell the general
public
what the GA is, but would also help focus the thinking of the members, educate
new arrivals, and so on.  I'd be very pleased to see such materials created here
on the ga list -- nothing could be more germane to the General Assembly as a
whole than that -- or sent to me privately, or however, with the assurance that
one way or the other, the essence of what derives therefrom will be posted for
all the world to see.  (Having such synthesized a document at hand -- and I
don't plan to write any such document itself; I do enough keyboard pounding
as it is -- I would plan to work my way into the Best Practices protocol by
making the SUGGESTION that such document be accepted as the genuine
voice of the members of the GA on what the GA is all about.)

> I am not here to nitpick.  I am unsure if a mandatory pigeon-holing is the
> answer (sounds like a rather Procrustean measure to me..).  On the other hand,
> I do agree that the purpose of the GA is not therapeutic.  As it stands, there
> are obviously disruptive influences which would impede the achievement of work
> in this assembly.  One question I think we should ask is: Why?  Aside from the
> common accusations, are there perhaps other reasons?  Speaking for myself, I
> don't see a huge problem in subscribing to ga-rules for any discussion of
> assembly procedures.  However, there is still the question of the rule-making
> mechanism, which remains in the minds of individuals who maintain their right
> to think for themselves.  After all, this motion is not simply about moving
> the discussion from one place to another, or even limiting/suppressing it.
> This motion has much more to do with how the GA goes about making decisions,
> than is readily apparent.  Since there is no clearly defined decision making
> process (or mechanism) in the GA, one can well understand how some people can
> have a problem with the whole matter (especially those darned democratic
> idealists...<wink>).

That decision making process has had its first preview in the publicaton of Part I

of the Best Practices.  At present, Joanna Lane and I are hammering the Flow
Chart into shape, and you may expect to see it by some time this weekend.  (If
I have to, initially I'll scan it into a bit map image and post that, although it
will
be quite ugly.  When my patent draftsman can get to it, he will then convert it
into a respectable looking .gif file, and these come out looking quite nice.)
After
that, there will be Explanations or Comments (the exact term there has not yet
been decided upon), along with the TIME LINE GUIDE, and whatever else
seems useful, especially including whatever else may be suggested to us.

> I think it is always better to encourage than to dictate.  Therefore, I don't
> like the wording of the current "motion" that Patrick Corliss is championing.
> In addition, I recognize that the issue is not simply about "where do we talk
> about what", and I really don't see the harm in a public show of hands where
> an ISSUE has generated enough interest to stimulate an officially "unofficial"
> straw poll.  In fact, I think we ought to sanction a vote procedure of one
> kind or another (specifically), as the stated decision-making
> procedure/mechanism of the GA.

That is what Best Practices will do.

> The current "rough consensus model of the
> IETF" cannot be applied to matters of policy.

That is eminently correct.

> The DNSO is not a body that
> deals with TECHNICAL issues, but rather, political and legal.  Last time I
> checked, they still vote in democratic nations, both for elections and in
> juries.  I am more than a little suspicious of ex cathedra decisions and
> motions.  Chairs should not be pushing motions.

Chairs do not abandon their rights to do so just by accepting that office. Any
member of the GA could be a PROPONENT of anything that the GA is
willing to consider, I should think.

> So, although I understand the desire to move the motion forward (and I am
> desperately curious to see what the "substantive" issues to be henceforth
> discussed on the main GA list will be),

A pretty good list of major policy issues that are presently being ignored was
posted some time in the last week or so, but I don't recall exactly when, or by
whom.

> I wish to make it clear that all
> support for the current motion is through a VOTE COUNT and *not* consensus.

The word "consensus" I am afraid we are stuck with, since it's in our Bylaws. But
rather than haggle over technical definitions, it might be well for us to approach

instead the general spirit of what is meant rather than the inept language: "the
members
of the General Assembly have taken up an ISSUE, and from that have reached
general agreement on what ought to be done about it," by whatever means may be
employed to justify such a conclusion.  The Best Practices will supply those
means.

> Further, that it is a reckoning based on a small fraction of actual GA
> subscribers.  I hope that in the future, there will be no opposition to such
> VOTE COUNTS from the current selection of YEA-sayers...  Lastly, I wish to
> state for the record that the carrying of this motion through the current
> "process" will establish a precedent for the implementation of motions into
> rules via a VOTE of participants, pure and simple.  My one follow-up question
> is:  Assuming that there is opposition to this "motion", what would be the
> necessary margin of victory?  50+1? 67%? what exactly?  Perhaps the Chair or
> Alt-Chair would care to respond?

Or maybe I would! :-)

There was a post earlier that was equating "democratic" with "plurality," i.e.,
50% + 1 vote. I would say instead that "democratic" refers to the process,
rather than the fine-tuned mathematics, and a key to that process is having
the voices of an "informed electorate" be heard.  The Best Practices is
particularly dedicated to that "informed" aspect -- time for DISCUSSION
and DEBATE is provided, and I would hazard to predict the following: as
to any matter of substance that has gone through the Best Practices process,
there will be no VOTES in which such head counting will really matter: the
notion will either be so bad as to be rejected overwhelmingly, or in the
final analysis it will make so much sense that only the habitual naysayers
will have the nerve to speak out against it. In short, the question addresses
a situation that I don't believe is ever really going to happen. (Deciding
on matters of policy is not like electing U. S. Presidents.)

And finally, it is my earnest hope, at least, that when all those "lurkers"
out there are able to see the GA working in a systematic and directed
way towards the making of definitive decisions about substantive matters,
there may well be an increase in interest, as exhibited not only through
the appearance of posts from people we've not heard from before, but
also by an influx of  people onto the voting rolls, and participation in
VOTES.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #621
************************