Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #631
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, July 26 2001           Volume 01 : Number 631

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:51:35 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency Memo

MEMORANDUM
July 24, 2001

At the Stockholm meeting in early June, the ccTLD managers present voted
unanimously to withdraw from the DNSO and form a ccTLD Supporting
Organization.  

The gTLD Registry Constituency of the DNSO recently formed a task force to
survey the contractual and other issues raised by the possible formation of
a ccTLD SO.  We ask the ICANN community to consider the following questions.

- -- Chuck Gomes, chair, gTLD Registry Constituency

I.  Contractual questions

A.	Will it be a condition of creation of a new SO that the ccTLDs be
required to enter into a contract with ICANN? Will that contract require
compliance with consensus policies?  If not, especially with regard to open
ccTLDs, would that constitute inequitable treatment in violation of ByLaw
and contract requirements?
B.	What should be the relationship between a ccTLD-ICANN contract on
re-delegation to a general ICANN policy on presumptive right to renewal for
uTLDs (unsponsored TLDs) or sTLDs (sponsored TLDs)?

II.  Reasons to have SOs

A.	If the rationale for creation of a ccTLD SO is (at least in part)
based on ensuring the payment of fees to ICANN, would that rationale also
support creation of other SOs more directly reflecting the interests and
views of others who also pay a high portion of ICANN fees?
B.	If the rationale for a ccTLD SO involves assuring adequate
representation on the ICANN Board of those whose interests may diverge and
who are bound by contracts with ICANN, would that support creation of
numerous additional SOs to reflect the distinct interests of gTLDs, sTLDs,
registrars, registrants, etc.? 
C.	Are sTLDs sufficiently differently situated from uTLDs, with respect
to their contractual relationships with ICANN and the role of Sponsoring
Organizations in the development of policies, that they should have their
own SO? 

III.  Creation of policies

A.	If ccTLDs had their own SO, would domain name policy issues be
required to be referred, routinely, to two or more SOs? Will that increase
or diminish the difficulty of developing and documenting consensus policies?
B.	Would a ccTLD SO have multiple constituencies, allowing groups
affected by ccTLD policies to participate in ccTLD policy creation? 
C.	Would gTLD registries have input into ccTLD SO deliberations or
would ccTLDs have input into DNSO deliberations? If not, how would
disagreements be resolved?  Would the Board resolve such disputes? How would
consensus among affected parties be developed and documented?
IV.  Effect on the DNSO

A.	If a ccTLD SO were created, what structural changes in any remaining
DNSO would be necessary? 
B.	Would current contractual documents be required to be revised if the
Names Council no longer existed or if it was not a definitive source of
judgment on consensus policies impacting gTLD registries? Should gTLD
registries agree to any such changes?

V.  Board membership

A.	If a ccTLD SO were allowed to elect a specified number of members of
the ICANN Board, would that diminish the role of the DNSO in selecting Board
members? Would it increase the number of Board members familiar with
registry operations?
B.	Would creation of an sTLD SO increase the representation of the
"registry voice" on the Board? If sTLDs declined to continue to participate
in the DNSO, would that force the creation of a separate SO for each
category of registry?
C.	If the main job of the Board is to recognize documented consensus,
should Board membership be reallocated to assure that every group that could
prevent a consensus (or unmask a false claim of consensus) on important
policy issues has an appropriate voice?
VI.  Structural proposals

A.	What structural changes will make sense in light of ICANN's purpose?
B.	Should restructuring provide an occasion for reallocating fees and
costs across a wider array of groups?
C.	Should a restructuring lead to substantial innovations in meeting
structure and use of online deliberation tools?
D.	Would a realignment of interests around SOs, combined with separate
at large elections of a few Board members and the creation of an open forum
for public participation in each SO, help to resolve disputes concerning
representation of registrants and individuals, diminish complaints regarding
capture of the DNSO by particular constituencies and overlaps between DNSO
constituencies, fix the dysfunctional performance of the General Assembly
and Names Council, and remedy other problems?

- -----Original Message-----
From: Sandy Harris [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 5:01 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency Memo

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> 
> The attached document is a memo from the gTLD Constituency that contains a
> list of questions that we believe need to be asked regarding the possible
> establishment of an ICANN ccTLD Supporting Organization.
> 
> Chuck Gomes
> Chair, gTLD Registry Constituency
> 
>  <<072401 gTLD Registry Constituency memo for ICANN community.doc>>
> 
>
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----------------------------------------------------
>                                                                      Name:
072401 gTLD Registry Constituency memo for ICANN community.doc
>    072401 gTLD Registry Constituency memo for ICANN community.doc    Type:
Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
>                                                                  Encoding:
base64

Please do not post documents in proprietary formats such as MS word.

Some of us "Don't do Windows". Even among those that do have one
or more Win-boxes about, many of us will not open such attachments
because of virus risks. Some systems automatically discard them at
the firewall.
- --
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, 25 Jul 2001 19:08:10 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Class Action Lawsuit

Dear members,

FYI:  The full text of the class action law suit against ICANN and certain 
members of the registrar constituency is available at the following URL:
http://www.lextext.com/smiley.pdf

- --
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, 25 Jul 2001 17:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Dan Steinberg elected as the GA delegate to the NC UDRP TF

On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> "William X. Walsh" wrote:
>
> > An on the UDRP matter, there are few who can present the position we
> > mutually share on this matter as well as Dan can.
>
> Well, if their discussions are OPEN and TRANSPARENT (which I highly doubt they
> will be), then we'll be in a good position to judge that for ourselves, William.
>
> > This is a victory, Sotiris.  Electing a non-attorney, with no history
> > at all with regard to the UDRP, would have been the most
> > counterproductive thing the GA could have done.  Kudos to those
> > members who recognized that and voted accordingly.

One point of correction: Dan *is* an attorney.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               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: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 21:43:54 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  The First New.net Name Appraisal at Afternic

Ken Stubbs writes:  "i am also frankly surprised that the GA chair would have 
been the person to start this thread anyhow !!"

When the wholly-owned subsidiary of ICANN's second-largest accredited 
registrar makes a policy decision to begin accepting for auction domains from 
the largest alternate root, this is a noteworthy event...    

What we are witnessing is the "consensus" of the market-place, a consensus 
that is more far-reaching, more representative and responsive to community 
needs than the "consensus" that ICANN purports to have.  The ISP community 
has reached a preliminary market-place consensus... they are supporting the 
New.net initiative -- Earthlink, @Home, prodigy, Juno, Netzero and many 
others (such as the American Alliance of Service Providers with over 550+ 
member ISPs) have partnered with this registry.  No wonder that our own ISP 
constituency has remained silent on this issue... they want to be able to 
supply that which the market demands, and that which New.net has offered to 
the public, new TLDs, now.

The secondary domain market has recognized this "consensus" and is moving to 
capitalize on the opportunity for further profit... many of ICANN's own new 
TLDs won't even be going "live" until 2002, and the public has not exactly 
clamored for the choices being offered -- .shop, .web, .club are choices far 
superior than that which ICANN has chosen.

The public has responded to the New.net initiatives because ICANN has not met 
their needs.  The ccTLDs are withdrawing from the DNSO primarily because 
their needs have not been met.   Congressmen craft legislation to establish a 
.kids domain because the needs of their constituents have been ignored. 

The consensus that I am hearing is not the consensus that ICANN purports to 
have.  We, in ICANN, bandy about the word "consensus".  We claim that our 
policies are based on the bottom-up consensus process, and yet a policy paper 
(ICP-3: A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS) was issued without the 
necessary bottom-up process, without any public comment, without constituency 
input, and without a vote by the Council... 

We can continue to bury our head in the sand (like those in the NC that argue 
that roots are beyond our scope), or we can move forward to responsibly deal 
with the issues that face us.  Alternate roots have become a part of the 
landscape... to attack them, or to ignore them, is folly.  

To the same degree that the White Paper recognized that the earlier IAHC 
process was insufficiently representative and that important segments of the 
Internet community remained outside the process, so too are we in ICANN now 
guilty of becoming an exclusionary cartel.   Letters between attorneys have 
already been published.  We are potentially on the brink of a very ugly 
situation.  It is time for Mr. Lynn to withdraw his paper, and time to 
recognize that if we lay claim to a consensus process, we had better start 
using it.

- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 10:27:06 +0800
From: "McMeikan, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Call for DNSO fundraising efforts

Joanna, just a reminder that there is a fund collecting for individuals
constituency

so far only two grams of gold (about us$16 very poor fundraising, so far I
am the only one with access to the account so I am still looking for backup
people in case I get run over)

here are details again... 

The public balance http://www.e-gold.com/pub-bal.asp?pubid=313216
if any one wants to put some more money in
http://two-cents-worth.com/?313216
provides an easy way, just up the donation amount to what feels good to you
;)
If you do not have an e-gold account yet you can get a free one here 
https://www.e-gold.com/newacct/newaccount.asp?cid=313216 
You can find someone to convert your local currency to e-gold here 
http://www.e-gold.com/unsecure/links.htm
 or 
http://www.golddirectory.com/e-gold.htm

and the e-gold questions and answers page
http://www.e-gold.com/unsecure/qanda.html

If all this still does not help enough for you to put money in, mail me and
I will see how I can help.

	cya,	Andrew...

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Joanna Lane [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Thursday, July 26, 2001 4:03 AM
> To:	ga ml; Danny Younger
> Subject:	[ga] Call for DNSO fundraising efforts
> 
> on 7/25/01 3:11 PM, DNSO Secretariat at [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> > Agenda item 10: Call for Sponsors Feedback
> > 
> > R. Cochetti reported on Budget Committee action concerning fund-raising
> > campaign. VeriSign is willing to match any funds raised up to $100 000.
> Note
> > about fund rising has been distributed (see annex 3). He invited the NC
> > members to be persuasive in soliciting donations.
> > 
> > Ph. Sheppard underlined that smaller contributions are most welcome and
> > invited all participants to encourage contributions within their
> > constituencies.
> > 
> > K. Stubbs added that this is an ideal opportunity for GA members to
> > contribute to the DNSO work and asked a letter be sent to the GA Chair
> > requesting a relevant message be forwarded to the GA list.
> 
> Hello Ken,
> What is your basis for asking individual members of the GA to contribute
> to
> the work of the DNSO? They have no Constituency, no seat on the NC, and no
> available Secretariat services at this time. In short,"pay to play" should
> work both ways, and until individuals have a say in how every part of the
> DNSO is run, why should we pay anything?
> 
> In the circumstances, it seems reasonable for individuals, rather than
> releasing funds directly to the DNSO, to set up an Escrow account and make
> contributions subject to the formation of an Individuals Constituency
> vested
> with all the same priviliges enjoyed by other affected stakeholders
> through
> their respective constituencies, including NC representation and a seat on
> each of its various Task Forces.
> 
> Would you support such a suggestion?
> 
> Regards,
> Joanna
> 
> <snip>
> 
- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 01:16:02 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Eureka! Consensus... Definition? LOL 

Ok, now... for sure the men in white coats are coming to take ME away to the
nice white room with padded walls scenario! Haha!

From a July 8, 1999, ICANN correspondence to The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley,
Jr. Chairman of The House Committee on Commerce, there is the following
(please read it carefully, it is a masterful piece of prose to which no less a
personage than Esther Dyson herself put her name):

"Because there were at the time of ICANN’s formation and remain today critics
of either
its bylaws or particular actions taken since its creation, it is useful to
define what we mean when
we use the word “consensus.” It obviously does not mean “unanimous,” nor is it
intended to
reflect some precise counting of heads pro or con on a particular subject,
since in this
environment that is simply not possible. What it does mean is that, on any
particular issue,
proposed policies are generated from public input and published to the world
at large, comments
are received and publicly discussed, and an attempt is made, from the entirety
of that process, to
articulate the consensus position as best it can be perceived.

"Obviously, to the extent any individual or group undertakes to articulate a
consensus of
the overall community, its work is useful only to the extent it accurately
reflects the consensus.
ICANN is no exception to this rule. Unfortunately, there is no litmus test
that can objectively
render a judgment as to whether this standard has been met in any particular
situation. Perhaps
the best test is whether the community at large is comfortable with the
process and the results,
and the best gauge of that is probably the level of continuing participation
in the process, and
voluntary compliance with the policies produced by that process.

"This is, necessarily, a more ambiguous standard than counting votes or some
other
objectively measurable criteria, and it inevitably means less efficient, more
messy, less linear
movement, as the perceived community consensus shifts and adapts to change, or
as perceptions
of that consensus themselves are refined or change. Such a process is easily
subject to criticism
and attack by those not satisfied with the process or the results; after all,
in the absence of some
objective determination, it is impossible to definitively refute claims that
the consensus has been
misread, and loud noise can sometimes be mistaken for broad support for any
proposition
advanced.

"Certainly there are those who do not accept that particular ICANN policies or
decisions to
date accurately reflect the community consensus, and there are some who are
not comfortable
with the process that has been employed to determine the community consensus.
No doubt
reasonable people can differ on both policy and process, and certainly there
are many opinions
about practically everything on which ICANN has acted. Still, it appears that
the process has
actually worked remarkably well considering the difficulty of the task, as
measured by the fact that
most of the global Internet communities continue to participate in this
consensus development process.’

"If ICANN were not reasonably successful as a consensus development vehicle,
it would
simply disappear; since it relies for its existence on voluntary compliance
and cooperation by
diverse parties around the world, ICANN cannot survive without broad support
throughout the
global Internet community. The fact that the privatization process of which
ICANN is such an
integral part continues to move forward, and that most of the constituent
elements of the relevant
community appear to support continued progress, is strong evidence that,
despite the inherent
ambiguity and messiness of the process, it is basically moving in the right
direction."

- -Now that last sentence strikes me as particularly interesting.  Especially
the words "most of the constituent elements of the relevant community appear
to support continued progress"...  The words "relevant community" are
noteworthy and quite telling, actually.  For, a little earlier in the second
paragraph we have: "Unfortunately, there is no litmus test that can
objectively render a judgment as to whether this standard has been met in any
particular situation. Perhaps the best test is whether the community at large
is comfortable with the process and the results, and the best gauge of that is
probably the level of continuing participation in the process, and
voluntary compliance with the policies produced by that process."

Who, or what, is the "relevant community" exactly?

- -Oh, and how about the last sentence on "consensus" in the first paragraph
above: "What it does mean is that, on any particular issue, proposed policies
are generated from public input and published to the world at large, comments
are received and publicly discussed, and an attempt is made, from the entirety
of that process, to
articulate the consensus position as best it can be perceived."

Perceived by whom?  the appointed officials?

And a little further down in the same letter:

"ICANN is Not a *Regulator* As this history establishes, and its bylaws make
clear,
ICANN is a creation of the Internet community itself; perhaps the best
analogy, although not
perfect, is a private standards-setting body. It has no statutory authority,
and never will; its
influence derives solely from the willingness of the various participants in
the Internet -- both
governmental and non-governmental -- to participate in the development of its
policies and abide
by the results of that consensus-development process. The global Internet is a
voluntary network
of (mostly private) networks, and it works in large part because the
participants choose to work
together to make it work."

Comments please.  Especially on the part: "It has no statutory authority, and
never will; its
influence derives solely from the willingness of the various participants in
the Internet -- both
governmental and non-governmental -- to participate in the development of its
policies and abide
by the results of that consensus-development process."

If so, how can a *REGULATORY* UDRP decision be considered legal or binding
under any code of jurisprudence?  What kind of consensus process, among which
community could produce an abomination like the UDRP to be foisted on the
Internet Community as a whole?  Obviously somehing went very wrong somewhere,
and the priorities got a little messed up... but, at least Esther had the
prognosticative acumen to foresee such things and to pass them off so
easily... I'm sure that will comfort those who've been adversely affected by
the ICANN "experiment".

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        a.k.a. [email-masked]  ;-)

BTW.... JULY 26, is International Remember Archimedes Day!
Part 1:
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/06/17/stimazmaz03006.html
Part 2:
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/06/17/stimazmaz03007.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: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:21:50 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Consensus Definition LOL

All,

It appears as if the formating in my last message quoting E. Dyson's letter to
Chairman Bailey was horrendous on the receiving end of things.  You can read
the letter in its entirety (it is the very first letter), plus a whole lot
more in .pdf format at the following address:
http://com-notes.house.gov/cchear/hearings106.nsf/0/9b7329ce68c79e458525679800593c10/$FILE/7899icann.pdf

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: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 00:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: technizmo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:[ga] Telecon minutes / task forces 

Seems as though the bottom in "bottom-up process" is
rising....

Handpicked "task forces" necessarily chaired by an NC
member as a means to eliminate the use of more open
WGs?

> C. Chicoine responded that the widely 
> distributed questionnaire will enable public to 
> participate and a task force will come up with the 
> recommendations based on the comments 
> received.

If public comment is to be considered, wouldn't a WG
better serve the purpose?

Sincerely,
Jason Graff

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.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: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 02:18:26 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  The First New.net Name Appraisal at Afternic

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 6:44 PM

> Letters between attorneys have already been published. We
> are potentially on the brink of a very ugly situation. 

We are on the verge of name-war and fragmentation of the Internet. This is
something that many of us have been trying to avoid for over four years now.

> It is time for Mr. Lynn to withdraw his paper, and time to 
> recognize that if we lay claim to a consensus process, we had 
> better start using it.

It's an interesting concept, but one that will never see realization. Not,
if current track-record is anything to go by. Fortunately for the rest of
the world, market forces are very powerful.

1) The customer, whatever else they may be, is always right.
2) When in doubt, see rule 1.
3) Ignore rule 2 at great peril.

ICANN is failing to acknowlege rule 3. Alternate root registries are a
natural consequence of that 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: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 14:29:06 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Erin Brokovitch to support Leah 

http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/010725/n25344302.html

I think Clint you known what you were doing. Thank you for the fun!
Jefsey 

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 09:23:52 -0400
From: "Ladi" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Interesting news tidbit

>From this morning's BNA Internet Law News:

HUGE IDENTITY THEFT UNCOVERED
Key personal data belonging to hundreds of individuals have been shared
in an Internet chat room, in what one expert says could become one of
the largest identity theft cases ever.  An anonymous source provided
MSNBC.com with a two-hour segment of log files from the chat containing
information from about 50 people. <http://www.msnbc.com/news/604496.asp>

Further reading of the article shows that many of the stolen credit
cards were used at Network Solutions, presumably to buy up domains...I
wonder what domains were registered and/or if whois info from those
domains would point to 'cybersquatters' (whatever the PC term for them
is today). Seems to be a tad more well-organized and targeted than your
usual identity theft since random merchandise wasn't bought, but
domains...

Can any of the card holders claim ownership of the domains registered
under their CC if they wished to do so? What will happen to these
domains after chargebacks from legitimate card holders?

~Ladi

- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 07:53:39 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Re:  The First New.net Name Appraisal at Afternic

> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 3:26 AM
> 
> Hello Roeland,
> 
> Thursday, July 26, 2001, 2:18:26 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> 
> >> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 6:44 PM
> 
> >> Letters between attorneys have already been published. We
> >> are potentially on the brink of a very ugly situation. 
> 
> > We are on the verge of name-war and fragmentation of the 
> Internet. This is
> > something that many of us have been trying to avoid for 
> over four years now.
> 
> The best way to avoid it is to not create alternative roots.

or ICANN can fold up it's tent and go home. Inclusive roots were there
before ICANN, unless you count IAHC as precursor to ICANN.

> The blame game can be played if you really want to, but it is much
> more likely to result in the alt.roots being blamed, and justifying
> the reason for a centralized authority ala ICANN.

Duh!... and your point is ...?
- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 15:19:30 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Dan Steinberg

Sotiris,

>
>I just want to inform any newbies who don't already know, that Dan 
>Steinberg
>(Open Root Server Confederation; Canada) was one of the members of the
>Membership Advisory Committee (“MAC”) back in 1999 that "recommended that 
>the
>election of At Large Directors be undertaken in at least two tranches
>[portions], so that the experience of the first effort could be used to 
>adjust
>the process for the remaining elections to the extent necessary to increase
>the odds of a broadly representative electorate."
>
>I wonder how truly representative of the GA's sentiments Mr. Steinberg will 
>be
>with respect to the UDRP? I hope we'll hear from him now and then...

Incidentally, the idea of having the AtLarge elections split in two parts 
did then (1999) have some kind of support, within and outside the MAC. But 
the general assumption was that the two elections were to be hold within a 
reasonable amount of time, not to be pushed so far in the future as it 
currently is.

Anyway, back to the main point (is Dan likely to represent the GA) there is 
a difference in the two cases: for the MAC, he was operating as an 
individual, while for the UDRP, he shall present the views of the GA (if 
there are any).
I know Dan personally, and as I stated already in another message to the 
list, we mostly disagree on specific issues but I trust him to present the 
views of the GA rather than his own agenda. I don't know the other two 
candidates, and therefore I could not make the same statement for them.
This said, I find worrisome that the interaction between Dan and GA is 
virtually non-existent at this point in time. This is why, even with all my 
trust for Dan, I did not feel like voting.

The key here is that the GA shall get some consensus points, that Dan should 
bring forward. Obviously, if the GA does not express any consensus point, 
Dan will be free to present his own point of view in the committee.
The same, of course, will apply for the DNSO Review, where I have the 
pleasure and honour to represent the GA. But I will post a message on this 
in the next 48H.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 15:24:03 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The first New.net Name appraisal at Afternic and a great free domain name

Anybody else willing to trade names on this list?

:<(

RG

>From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] The first New.net Name appraisal at Afternic and a great 
>free domain name
>Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 21:58:53 +0200 (CEST)
>
>Surprised you monitor Afternic.
>
>Not sure which name you refer to (loads on the URL you
>give): internet.free?
>
>Internet.low is still available, for free. Just mail me. Internet.vid
>is also available, but I haven't decided yet whether the .vid's will
>also be free. Just mail me.
>
>If you are interested in the aftermarket, which is the impression your
>mail makes, I can give you a URL of a nice list of great .com (and
>.net and .org [slightly insecure thanks to ICANN/VeriSign[) names
>without any warnings at reasonable prices. Just mail me, if you are
>interested.
>
>As a *bonus*, and to see whether anyone really reads this list:
>
>I give away (if I may) the domain
>
>AMBIGUITY.COM
>
>to the first person whose email hits my server telling me she wants
>it.
>
>No strings attached. Only precondition: Move it out of my registrar
>account. I will not pay for it next year. (After Feb 5 2002).
>
>
>--
>[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
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 08:45:49 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The first New.net Name appraisal at Afternic and a great free domain name

On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 03:24:03PM +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Anybody else willing to trade names on this list?
> 
> :<(

Even better, we could trade fake appraisals.  I thought the appraisal
for 3.5 million dollars for "movie.shop" was most interesting.  Clearly
I'm in the wrong business -- I should sell "songbird.com" and retire,
eh?

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 15:50:59 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] First Draft of "Letter from Registrars Constituency to Stuart Lynn"

Erica Roberts wrote:
>
>Joop says:
> > When can the registrants themselves have their say in how they would 
>like
> > to be "protected"?
> >
>I agree that this is an important issue and I know that many registrars
>would be interested in developing a code of conduct incorporating a
>'customer bill of rights' or something of the sort.  We already have
>protection for customer IP rights but this is just one aspect of the
>consumer protection issue.  Others aspects include name portability
>(otherwise known as transfers), change of registrant, and billing.
>One way of moving the issue forward would be for the NC to put together a
>cross constituency WG to identify consumer protection principles to be
>incorporated into ICANN policy.  Alternatively, the GA or any constituency
>is free to draft a set of principles, and refer them to the NC for
>consideration and endorsement by the DNSO.
>

The protection of IP rights has not been ensured via a cross-constituency 
WG, or a proposal to NC, but building a specific constituency.
I would assume that similarly, while the options you outline are reasonable 
second-best choice, the ideal solution would be to let the consumers (as a 
whole, not just subsets like Business, IP, NonCom) to be able to get 
organized in a Constituency.
Specifically, and that was probably Joop's point, what is sorely missing is 
a vehicle to transmit the instances of the Individuals.

Would the Registrars favour such Constituency, with the rationale that 
consumers could be partners in building fair rules of conduct, or would they 
oppose it, maybe because they think that consumers and Registrars have 
opposing financial interest?
IMHO, the text at the origin of the thread is a clear example of a policy 
issue where an Individual DNH Constituency, would it have existed, could 
have supported the POV of the Registrars Constituency.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

- --
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, 26 Jul 2001 18:06:09 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The first New.net Name appraisal at Afternic and a great free domain name

Yes!

On 17:24 26/07/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
>Anybody else willing to trade names on this list?
>:<(

I am ready to give away good DNs to a DNSO/GA Trust to help financing the 
NC, Leah's campaign and NewLevl attorneys.
Jefsey

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:14:10 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

Bill Lovell wrote:
>
>Some relevant questions concerning this letter:
>
>On what basis is ICANN claiming "consensus?"
>
>What is the basis for the statement "the concept
>of multiple roots clearly leads to the potential for
>conflicting top level domains and consequent
>Internet instability," and if that is true, why is
>it establishing a .biz TLD, when there already is
>one of those, which could bring about the
>very collision it decries?

The basis for this statement is the position of the IETF, as summarised by 
the IAB.
This item has also been debated at the PSO General Assembly some 10 days 
ago, and there has not been one single voice in favour of multiple roots.
Incidentally, I have been one among others who spoke in favour of 
IAB/ICANN's position, but of course made it clear that I was speaking only 
as "a member of the DNSO/GA".

I don't want to underestimate the importance of the different political POVs 
on the multiple roots, but since this issue has negligible support (if any 
at all) in the Protocol community, and specifically at the IETF, ICANN 
should not do anything else than dismiss it.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

- --
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 #631
************************