Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #643
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, August 1 2001          Volume 01 : Number 643

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

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:44:42 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed

At 5:47 AM +0200 31/7/01, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>No more than:
>
>Meryll Lynch, One Meryll Lynch Plazza.
>Alliance, 1 place de l'Alliance
>CocaCola, CocaCola Tower

But is Burger King allowed to open a store at 524 McDonalds Road without
infringing a TM ???

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 14:05:33 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALSC's Structural Options

For goodness sake Derek, it's a discussion document, enough already! Would
you have the GA stop work altogether until there is a fully funded GA
Secretariat?

This document is typical of the generosity of our unpaid Chair that some
just take for granted; it represents a voluntary contribution in kind. Danny
has taken up the mantle of responsibility for clarifying the various issues
at hand that need GA input, and he has correctly identified the ALSC as
significant to the DNSO's future and drawn it to our attention in a form
that facilitates discussion, for which I thank him.

Personally, I don't care if it's posted at porno.com, or covered with ICANN
logos, it's the ISSUE that matters. And BTW, if you don't like the idea of
private websites masquerading as official ICANN websites, go talk to the
constituencies and give a few of them a hard time.

Regards,
Joanna

on 7/31/01 11:15 AM, Derek Conant at [email-masked] wrote:

> It does not appear appropriate for the Chair of the GA to be directing
> DNSO participants to his commercial Web site
> (http://www.icannworld.org).
> 
> The Chair does not appear to have any legal or entity protection,
> whatsoever, concerning the Chair's representations made at his Web site
> regarding ICANN, the DNSO, the DNSO GA, the ALSC or others.
> 
> This concerns me because in my opinion the Chair does not appear correct
> and I expect that he should appear more responsible in that he should
> not be engaged in activity that appears designed to redirect DNSO
> participants away from the DNSO to his own commercial Web site.
> 
> The Chair's Web site appears to me to be more than merely informational.
> 
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
> 
> [email-masked] wrote:
> 
>> I have taken the liberty of creating visual representations of the
>> restructuring proposals put forth by the ALSC (their Options A,B,C).
>> These have been published at http://www.icannworld.org/options.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, 31 Jul 2001 20:19:57 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Extention to the WHOIS Consultaion period

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

The Names Council WHOIS Committee of the DNSO today agreed to extend
the WHOIS consultation period until the 14th August 2001. The survey
http://www.icann.org/dnso/whois-survey-en-10jun01.htm is available in
English, French, Spanish Russian and Japanese is part of a major
international survey which has already been completed by over 2000
respondents.

The purpose of the survey is to potentially review the current policy
regarding the availability names and addresses associated with the
registered holders of domain name (internet addresses). The WHOIS
Committee will be reviewing all comments submitted and then drafting a
report reflecting the views of the respondents, identifying where
there is satisfaction with the WHOIS environment and where
improvements to the ICANN WHOIS policy could be considered.

All internet users are invited to participate in the survey.
A preliminary report will be given to the Names Council meeting during
the ICANN Montevideo, Uruguay meeting, scheduled between the 7-10th
September 2001.

DNSO Secretariat
- --
- --
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, 01 Aug 2001 12:58:27 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

At 09:43 31/07/2001 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

>A rough blanket statement of the broad objectives of the Individual 
>Registrants
>Constituency (IRC) might be as follows:
>
>"Mission:  To effect and ensure the recognition, representation, and input of
>Individual Registrants of Domain Names as bona fide stakeholders in the Domain
>Name System (DNS), through an established and direct voice in all ICANN policy
>formulation bodies and functions."

YES to that.

- --
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, 01 Aug 2001 20:43:45 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

Which puts you in the position of ratifying ICANN's claim to be
a policy making rather than a technical coordinating body, does
it not?

Bill Lovell

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 09:43 31/07/2001 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> >A rough blanket statement of the broad objectives of the Individual
> >Registrants
> >Constituency (IRC) might be as follows:
> >
> >"Mission:  To effect and ensure the recognition, representation, and input of
> >Individual Registrants of Domain Names as bona fide stakeholders in the Domain
> >Name System (DNS), through an established and direct voice in all ICANN policy
> >formulation bodies and functions."
>
> YES to that.

- --
Any terms 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
Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found 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, 01 Aug 2001 00:03:52 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

Actually Bill, it puts me in the position of ratifying the claim of the rightful
policy making body *within* ICANN, by that I mean the DNSO and its NC, along with the
rowdy bunch in the GA.  All of which, I think, is not so far from what the ICANN
Bylaws and all the rest of the verbiage/claptrap <take your pick> purport anyway...

If we're going to get the ship to harbour, we're going to have to navigate Bill.
Choose your point of reference folks. ("astronaut" = starsailor Gk., was always one
of my favourite concepts as a child.  There's a whole cybersky to choose from...)

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
                ...dotophile

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> Which puts you in the position of ratifying ICANN's claim to be
> a policy making rather than a technical coordinating body, does
> it not?
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > At 09:43 31/07/2001 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >
> > >A rough blanket statement of the broad objectives of the Individual
> > >Registrants
> > >Constituency (IRC) might be as follows:
> > >
> > >"Mission:  To effect and ensure the recognition, representation, and input of
> > >Individual Registrants of Domain Names as bona fide stakeholders in the Domain
> > >Name System (DNS), through an established and direct voice in all ICANN policy
> > >formulation bodies and functions."
> >
> > YES to that.
>
> --
> Any terms 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
> Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
> mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found 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, 31 Jul 2001 22:11:28 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Protection from what? - Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protecti on  Consitituency

UDRP?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Derek Conant [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 6:51 AM
> To: erica
> Cc: Roeland Meyer; 'Joop Teernstra'; [email-masked]; Sotiris
> Sotiropoulos; Roberto Gaetano; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Protection from what? - Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant 
> Protection
> Consitituency
> 
> 
> Where is there evidence that Consumer/Registrants need 
> protection?  Protection
> when?  Protection from what?  Protection from whom?  A 
> consumer and registrant
> can be both commercial and private.  This 
> Consumer/Registrants issue appears to
> be an At-Large constituency matter.  Is this group proposing 
> a constituency just
> to propose one?  Or, what?
> 
> In an earlier post, I requested information concerning 
> Registrars engaged in
> buying or selling expired domain names and other matters.  
> There are rumors that
> Consumer/Registrants need protection, however, this concept 
> appears to be
> motivated only by speculation and paranoia that have no merit.
> 
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
> 
> erica wrote:
> 
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency
> >
> > >
> > > > Or do you like to revisit my WG proposal to bring all
> > > > Registrants together
> > > > in one super-constituency?
> > >
> > > Since we're all in the same stew-pot ... why not?
> >
> > The best reason 'why not' is that, as far as I know, there 
> is no support for
> > this from either the business or non-commercial 
> constituency.  The only way
> > this could succeed, is with their support.
> >
> > erica
> > > --
> > > 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: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 23:21:24 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 08:43:45PM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
> Which puts you in the position of ratifying ICANN's claim to be
> a policy making rather than a technical coordinating body, does
> it not?

It is a sad irony that those who most vociferously complain about ICANN
exceeding its mandate as a technical coordinating body are precisely the
ones who exert the most pressure for it to become a global internet
governance organization, with large scale global elections and an
elaborate representational structure that some have compared to the UN. 
It is a great pity that those individuals, some of whom are otherwise
quite intelligent, are simply oblivious to the intrinsic contradiction
in their position, and to the inevitable consequences of that 
contradiction...

- -- 
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: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 07:54:13 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

Dear Bill, Sotiris and Joop,
Sotiris' reasoning is to navigate according to visible stars (as a seaman, 
I think the adjective important :-). OK lett see what it means.

The ALSC documents lead to understand that AmerICANN wants to deal with 
Support Organizations with a contract including acknowledgment of ICP-3 (as 
Roman Christians had to adore the Emperor first) and a contribution to 
their charity, research and educational activities. The pay-vote system.

Let assume that ICP 3.17 becomes technically correct, IMHO it is reasonable 
to target for a DNSO including four "constituencies":

- - Registrars
- - gTLD Registries
- - ccTLD
- - Registrants

The Registrants Constituency could pay their due through the large 
participants granting the Individual Committee Members a free Membership 
(like DNSO/BC ask for 1000 euro per Member with a discount to 100 euro for 
SMEs).

Paying registrants could be ... our IP friends. Amusing but much more 
sensible to work together rather than to oppose. This might help a common 
understanding on an UDRP replacement. When you think of it we have many 
things in common.
Jefsey

On 05:43 02/08/01, William S. Lovell said:
>Which puts you in the position of ratifying ICANN's claim to be
>a policy making rather than a technical coordinating body, does
>it not?
>
>Bill Lovell
>
>Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > At 09:43 31/07/2001 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >
> > >A rough blanket statement of the broad objectives of the Individual
> > >Registrants
> > >Constituency (IRC) might be as follows:
> > >
> > >"Mission:  To effect and ensure the recognition, representation, and 
> input of
> > >Individual Registrants of Domain Names as bona fide stakeholders in 
> the Domain
> > >Name System (DNS), through an established and direct voice in all 
> ICANN policy
> > >formulation bodies and functions."
> >
> > YES to that.
>
>--
>Any terms 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
>Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
>mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found 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, 01 Aug 2001 08:38:59 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Protection from what? - Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protecti on  Consitituency

On 07:11 01/08/01, Roeland Meyer said:
>UDRP?

ICANN?
VeriSign?
US Government Safe Harbor messpolicy?
GIP (http://gip.org)?
Transfer mess?
.biz colliders?
NeuLevel lotteries?
ASO lack of vision?
WIPO?
ICP-3?
lacks in Judges education?
AntiCybersquatter Act?

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Derek Conant [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 6:51 AM
> > To: erica
> > Cc: Roeland Meyer; 'Joop Teernstra'; [email-masked]; Sotiris
> > Sotiropoulos; Roberto Gaetano; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> > [email-masked]
> > Subject: Protection from what? - Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant
> > Protection
> > Consitituency
> >
> >
> > Where is there evidence that Consumer/Registrants need
> > protection?  Protection
> > when?  Protection from what?  Protection from whom?  A
> > consumer and registrant
> > can be both commercial and private.  This
> > Consumer/Registrants issue appears to
> > be an At-Large constituency matter.  Is this group proposing
> > a constituency just
> > to propose one?  Or, what?
> >
> > In an earlier post, I requested information concerning
> > Registrars engaged in
> > buying or selling expired domain names and other matters.
> > There are rumors that
> > Consumer/Registrants need protection, however, this concept
> > appears to be
> > motivated only by speculation and paranoia that have no merit.
> >
> > Derek Conant
> > DNSGA President and Chairman
> >
> > erica wrote:
> >
> > > Subject: RE: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Or do you like to revisit my WG proposal to bring all
> > > > > Registrants together
> > > > > in one super-constituency?
> > > >
> > > > Since we're all in the same stew-pot ... why not?
> > >
> > > The best reason 'why not' is that, as far as I know, there
> > is no support for
> > > this from either the business or non-commercial
> > constituency.  The only way
> > > this could succeed, is with their support.
> > >
> > > erica
> > > > --
> > > > 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: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 00:38:07 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Actually Bill, it puts me in the position of ratifying the claim of the rightful
> policy making body *within* ICANN, by that I mean the DNSO and its NC, along with the
> rowdy bunch in the GA.  All of which, I think, is not so far from what the ICANN
> Bylaws and all the rest of the verbiage/claptrap <take your pick> purport anyway...

Which I assumed to be your intent, so I'm merely suggesting that you stick in a word
or two about "*within* ICANN" so that the interpretation that I tacked onto it will not
be adopted.  And  even there I must point out an unhappy truth: the DNSO and NC,
etc., do not "make" policy -- they recommend.

And while we're on the subject, I think I'd follow Joop and do the "super-constituency"
bit -- just "Registrants" -- no distinction between big, little, mom & pop, 13 yr old
Susie,
the hawkers of nostrums and placebos, "BUY NOW," and all that.  The common thread
is that the registrant has registered a domain name and is concerned over what might
happen next (as Roeland Meyer puts it, "the UDRP?"), and that common denominator
is the same, whatever may be the use to which the domain name is put. That would
very precisely define the purpose and scope of interest of the constituency, and since
it directly affects domain names, and only domain names, there can be no question
that it lies within the ambit of the DNSO and the GA.

> If we're going to get the ship to harbour, we're going to have to navigate Bill.
> Choose your point of reference folks. ("astronaut" = starsailor Gk., was always one
> of my favourite concepts as a child.  There's a whole cybersky to choose from...)

(Can anyone out there tell me what the above means?  Sotiris, you're getting to be
as bad as Jefsey and Eric! HAHAHAHA!)

Bill Lovell

>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>                 ...dotophile
>
> "William S. Lovell" wrote:
>
> > Which puts you in the position of ratifying ICANN's claim to be
> > a policy making rather than a technical coordinating body, does
> > it not?
> >
> > Bill Lovell
> >
> > Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >
> > > At 09:43 31/07/2001 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > >
> > > >A rough blanket statement of the broad objectives of the Individual
> > > >Registrants
> > > >Constituency (IRC) might be as follows:
> > > >
> > > >"Mission:  To effect and ensure the recognition, representation, and input of
> > > >Individual Registrants of Domain Names as bona fide stakeholders in the Domain
> > > >Name System (DNS), through an established and direct voice in all ICANN policy
> > > >formulation bodies and functions."
> > >
> > > YES to that.
> >
> > --
> > Any terms 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
> > Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
> > mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
> > http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
Any terms 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
Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found 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: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 01:15:54 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

- --------------F1BF72D6BABC2E8F607396AB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 08:43:45PM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
> > Which puts you in the position of ratifying ICANN's claim to be
> > a policy making rather than a technical coordinating body, does
> > it not?
>
> It is a sad irony that those who most vociferously complain about ICANN
> exceeding its mandate as a technical coordinating body are precisely the
> ones who exert the most pressure for it to become a global internet
> governance organization, with large scale global elections and an
> elaborate representational structure that some have compared to the UN.
> It is a great pity that those individuals, some of whom are otherwise
> quite intelligent, are simply oblivious to the intrinsic contradiction
> in their position, and to the inevitable consequences of that
> contradiction...

Not at all.  The first point to make is that my post above was intended to
eliminate an ambiguity: the intent of the "purpose" statement was directed
towards internal ICANN procedures and policies, not ICANN's pretense
to establish Internet policy as a whole, and I thought that ought to be made

more clear.

Secondly, the fora of ICANN are used to speak out on large scale, global
Internet issues simply because they are the only ones available -- no other
place on the net has the membership and audience.  ICANN gives rise to
these issues simply because of its own posture, hence where better to put
the screws to that posture?  Even the At-Large will be an ICANN body,
and on it one can expect to see the same thing.  It is indeed contradictory,

in a sense, to address such global issues within the fora of a body that one

claims not to have policy making power on those issues, but one has to
use the tools one has.  I'm not sure what you mean by the "inevitable
consequences of that contradiction," but I see them to become eventually
the ultimate resolution of those issues, at which time the people that are
presently so using ICANN's fora will say, "Thanks for the bandwidth, guys.
You're now on your own, as are we."

The ultimate authority on all things always lies with the people, and the
Internet as presently constituted will ultimately fall to that power.

Bill Lovell

>
>
> --
> 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

- --
Any terms 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
Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --------------F1BF72D6BABC2E8F607396AB
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<p>Kent Crispin wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 08:43:45PM -0700, William
S. Lovell wrote:
<br>> Which puts you in the position of ratifying ICANN's claim to be
<br>> a policy making rather than a technical coordinating body, does
<br>> it not?
<p>It is a sad irony that those who most vociferously complain about ICANN
<br>exceeding its mandate as a technical coordinating body are precisely
the
<br>ones who exert the most pressure for it to become a global internet
<br>governance organization, with large scale global elections and an
<br>elaborate representational structure that some have compared to the
UN.
<br>It is a great pity that those individuals, some of whom are otherwise
<br>quite intelligent, are simply oblivious to the intrinsic contradiction
<br>in their position, and to the inevitable consequences of that
<br>contradiction...</blockquote>
Not at all.&nbsp; The first point to make is that my post above was intended
to
<br>eliminate an ambiguity: the intent of the "purpose" statement was directed
<br>towards <i>internal</i> ICANN procedures and policies, not ICANN's
pretense
<br>to establish Internet policy as a whole, and I thought that ought to
be made
<br>more clear.
<p>Secondly, the fora of ICANN are <i>used</i> to speak out on large scale,
global
<br>Internet issues simply because they are the only ones available --
no other
<br>place on the net has the membership and audience.&nbsp; ICANN <i>gives
rise to</i>
<br>these issues simply because<i> </i>of its own posture, hence where
better to put
<br>the screws to that posture?&nbsp; Even the At-Large will be an ICANN
body,
<br>and on it one can expect to see the same thing.&nbsp; It is indeed
contradictory,
<br>in a sense, to address such global issues within the fora of a body
that one
<br>claims not to have policy making power on those issues, but one has
to
<br>use the tools one has.&nbsp; I'm not sure what you mean by the "inevitable
<br>consequences of that contradiction," but I see them to become eventually
<br>the ultimate resolution of those issues, at which time the people that
are
<br>presently so using ICANN's fora will say, "Thanks for the bandwidth,
guys.
<br>You're now on your own, as are we."
<p>The ultimate authority on all things always lies with the people, and
the
<br>Internet as presently constituted will ultimately fall to that power.
<p>Bill Lovell
<br>&nbsp;
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<p>--
<br>Kent Crispin&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
"Be good, and you will be
<br>[email-masked]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
lonesome." -- Mark Twain
<br>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote>

<p>--
<br>Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
<br>possibly be explained at:
<br>"WHAT IS": <A HREF="http://whatis.techtarget.com/">http://whatis.techtarget.com/</A>
<br>GLOSSARY: <A HREF="http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm">http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm</A>
<br>Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
<br>mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</A>
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------F1BF72D6BABC2E8F607396AB--

- --
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, 01 Aug 2001 20:20:23 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

At 22:37 31/07/2001 +0800, erica wrote:

>Subject: RE: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency
>
>
> >
> > > Or do you like to revisit my WG proposal to bring all
> > > Registrants together
> > > in one super-constituency?
> >
> > Since we're all in the same stew-pot ... why not?
>
>The best reason 'why not' is that, as far as I know, there is no support for
>this from either the business or non-commercial constituency.  The only way
>this could succeed, is with their support.

Erica,

It is true that so far the proposal has received the cold shoulder. Yet, 
Roeland has a point.  We do have common interests as registrants.
Moreover, a  Registrant constituency with a strong business component would 
help solving the perennial funding problem of the NCDNHC and the startup 
funding problem of the IRC (Individual Registrants).

A single Registrants' Constituency made up of diverse interests would also 
help mitigating the polarization between commercial and non-commercial, as 
the Individuals would straddle that divide.

What would it take to get the support of the Biz constituency? A more 
representative (of the world's commercial Registrants) Business 
Constituency, perhaps?

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 20:15:28 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

At 20:43 1/08/2001 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>Which puts you in the position of ratifying ICANN's claim to be
>a policy making rather than a technical coordinating body, does
>it not?

I have always maintained that de facto it was a policy making body, even 
when Esther Dyson, the Staff, Mike Roberts, and of course our dear Kent did 
their best to deny it.
Of course ICANN makes Domain Policy.
And the DNSO is supposed to give it policy-advice.

If it wasn't , many of us would not belong in this DNSO Assembly.

If ICANN now *claims* it, that is quite helpful.
Let us all help it to become globally representative, democratic and 
legitimate.
I don't see any other game in town.

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 10:52:45 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

On 08:21 01/08/01, Kent Crispin said:
>It is a sad irony that those who most vociferously complain about ICANN
>exceeding its mandate as a technical coordinating body are precisely the
>ones who exert the most pressure for it to become a global internet
>governance organization,

How true. Questions are: why? what ca we do?

>with large scale global elections and an
>elaborate representational structure that some have compared to the UN.

I am afraid this shows that such individuals are also Members of the
the USG, Staff and BoD, otherwise we would not be in the present
situation.

>It is a great pity that those individuals, some of whom are otherwise
>quite intelligent, are simply oblivious to the intrinsic contradiction
>in their position, and to the inevitable consequences of that
>contradiction...

True. But I am afraid some are not oblivious, but quite aware of what
they do. Hence at our level the only response we have which is to try
to delay their efforts at maximum, giving natural market and technical
forces time to take over.

I accept this is not exciting. If you known another strategy, please
explain.

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: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 10:50:21 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

On 2001-07-31 23:21:24 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 08:43:45PM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:

Whow, time travel. ;-)

>It is a sad irony that those who most vociferously complain about 
>ICANN exceeding its mandate as a technical coordinating body are 
>precisely the ones who exert the most pressure for it to become a 
>global internet governance organization, with large scale global 
>elections and an elaborate representational structure that some 
>have compared to the UN. It is a great pity that those 
>individuals, some of whom are otherwise quite intelligent, are 
>simply oblivious to the intrinsic contradiction in their position, 
>and to the inevitable consequences of that contradiction...

I'd agree with you if ICANN would indeed just be a technical 
coordination body.  There'd really be few justification for 
sophisticated user representation structures if we'd be talking 
about keeping lists of media types, port numbers, and possibly top 
level domains.

But, sad enough, ICANN is in the business of domain name policy, 
which directly affects users' rights.  Consider the UDRP: As a 
domain name holder, I'm subject to that policy's procedures. Working 
out such a policy in a process which is restricted to non-customer 
stake holders doesn't look justifiable to me.  Consider the 
provisions for initial domain registrations in the new TLDs.  Once 
again, these regulations directly influence customers' interests.

That is, whereever ICANN acts as a regulatory monopoly (that is, 
customers can't opt out except by not using the Internet, or by not 
registering domains), customer (or individual) representation seems 
necessary.

Now, of course, there's the question how this can be accomplished in 
an appropriate way which doesn't justify mission-creep by 
over-legitimization.

One thing which would greatly simplify this would be some kind of 
internet-centric global customer coalition which could take the role 
of consumer watchdogs and advocates in more traditional regulatory 
environments and consultations.  (Civil Liberties Constituency, 
anyone?) In a working consensus-building process, such a coalition 
or constituency could prove quite valuable, and may be close to 
sufficient for customer/user interest representation in the 
policy-making process.

Bad enough, it doesn't seem that this process is working as designed 
nowadays.  In particular, it seems that most of the more important 
decisions are NOT made in documented consensus-building procedures 
within the DNSO (or even the DNSO GA), but on the board.  Also, I 
don't see a Civil Liberties Constituency, yet.

Thus, the second question which comes up is who should be 
represented on the board, and how they should be represented. 

And that's precisely where the hard part of the problem begins. Just 
look at the ccTLDs...

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #643
************************