Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #645
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, August 3 2001            Volume 01 : Number 645

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

Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 20:20:39 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [announce] NC telecon 16 August 2001 - agenda

> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 7:48 AM
> 
> Roland,
> 
> ICANN does not fund the DNSO.  The DNSO is self-funding.

Ten what was that bit about DNSO funding, in the ICANN BoD meeting?
- --
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 17:49:41 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:43:44 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>erica wrote:
>
>> Can we move on to discuss the broad objectives of the proposed constituency
>> and funding issues?
>
>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."

I know I shouldn't do too many "me too"posts but what Sotiris said
works for me.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 17:48:53 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 22:33:39 +0800, "erica"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I quite like this idea - solves a lot of problems.
>>
>> As Joop said we could call it "Individual Registrants" or we could
>> just call it "Registrants" and specify in the fine print individuals
>> only.
>>
>Lets go with this then -
>As I understand it, it would then be necessary to specify that membership is
>open to 'natural persons' who are domain name registrants.

Yep.  That is IMO exactly the way to do it.  

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 20:38:23 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

On 17:49 2/08/2001 +1200, DPF said:

>I know I shouldn't do too many "me too"posts but what Sotiris said
>works for me.

Nothing wrong with "me too" posts when we are trying to come to a consensus.
The more the better.

- --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: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 07:07:48 -0400 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [announce] NC telecon 16 August 2001 - agenda

I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 11:21 PM
To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; Roeland Meyer; [email-masked]'; DNSO Secretariat
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [announce] NC telecon 16 August 2001 - agenda

> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 7:48 AM
> 
> Roland,
> 
> ICANN does not fund the DNSO.  The DNSO is self-funding.

Ten what was that bit about DNSO funding, in the ICANN BoD meeting?
- --
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, 2 Aug 2001 09:18:04 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] GA member for .org Task Force

- --part1_c9.1365b78f.289aad0c_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear members,

The Chair of the new .org Task Force, Milton Mueller, has asked that the GA 
nominate a representative to this Task Force.   Please advise if you have an 
interest in this matter by sending me a candidate's statement.  As we 
currently do not have a voting mechanism at our disposal, I will ask Joop for 
the temporary use of his polling booth.   Additional details will be posted 
as we work out the selection process.

- --part1_c9.1365b78f.289aad0c_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3>Dear members,
<BR>
<BR>The Chair of the new .org Task Force, Milton Mueller, has asked that the GA 
<BR>nominate a representative to this Task Force. &nbsp;&nbsp;Please advise if you have an 
<BR>interest in this matter by sending me a candidate's statement. &nbsp;As we 
<BR>currently do not have a voting mechanism at our disposal, I will ask Joop for 
<BR>the temporary use of his polling booth. &nbsp;&nbsp;Additional details will be posted 
<BR>as we work out the selection process.
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_c9.1365b78f.289aad0c_boundary--
- --
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, 2 Aug 2001 07:45:28 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [announce] NC telecon 16 August 2001 - agenda

I don't have the time to dig up specific evidence at the moment, but I'm
refering to the brouhaha a few months ago (Jan-Mar? ICANN budget-time) where
we argued exactly this issue. I don't exactly recall the result.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 4:08 AM
> To: 'Roeland Meyer'; Gomes, Chuck; [email-masked]'; DNSO Secretariat
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [announce] NC telecon 16 August 2001 - agenda
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you are referring to.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 11:21 PM
> To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; Roeland Meyer; [email-masked]'; DNSO Secretariat
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [announce] NC telecon 16 August 2001 - agenda
> 
> 
> > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 7:48 AM
> > 
> > Roland,
> > 
> > ICANN does not fund the DNSO.  The DNSO is self-funding.
> 
> Ten what was that bit about DNSO funding, in the ICANN BoD meeting?
> --
> 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 17:08:55 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA member for .org Task Force

I nominate Marc Sheneider of his interest in .org support for a while and 
all twhat he already did. I also fully trust his judgement.
Jefsey

On 15:18 02/08/01, [email-masked] said:
>Dear members,
>
>The Chair of the new .org Task Force, Milton Mueller, has asked that the GA
>nominate a representative to this Task Force.   Please advise if you have an
>interest in this matter by sending me a candidate's statement.  As we
>currently do not have a voting mechanism at our disposal, I will ask Joop for
>the temporary use of his polling booth.   Additional details will be posted
>as we work out the selection process.

- --
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 11:30:40 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA member for .org Task Force

Danny,

We may not have a formal voting mechanism, but do you think it would be a
good idea to ask for a ga-announce message to be sent to the entire
membership and include a timeline for those who may want to participate?
Could Elizabeth squeeze that in to her busy schedule?

I would suggest 7 days for nomination or self-nomination, 7 days for
opportinities to discuss and debate on the list, followed by 7 days polling.

Regards,
Joanna

on 8/2/01 9:18 AM, [email-masked] at [email-masked] wrote:

> Dear members,
> 
> The Chair of the new .org Task Force, Milton Mueller, has asked that the GA
> nominate a representative to this Task Force.   Please advise if you have an
> interest in this matter by sending me a candidate's statement.  As we
> currently do not have a voting mechanism at our disposal, I will ask Joop for
> the temporary use of his polling booth.   Additional details will be posted
> as we work out the selection process.
> 
> 
> 

- --
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 11:35:56 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

"me too" on both of these posts.
Regards,
Joanna 

>>> As Joop said we could call it "Individual Registrants" or we could
>>> just call it "Registrants" and specify in the fine print individuals
>>> only.
>>> 
>> Lets go with this then -
>> As I understand it, it would then be necessary to specify that membership is
>> open to 'natural persons' who are domain name registrants.
> 
> Yep.  That is IMO exactly the way to do it.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:43:44 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos
<[email-masked]> 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."

I know I shouldn't do too many "me too"posts but what Sotiris said
works for me.

- --
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, 2 Aug 2001 12:52:58 -0400 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [announce] NC telecon 16 August 2001 - agenda

The current situation is this: no ICANN budgeted funds are used to pay for
any of the DNSO budgeted expenses.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 10:45 AM
To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; Roeland Meyer; [email-masked]'; DNSO Secretariat
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [announce] NC telecon 16 August 2001 - agenda

I don't have the time to dig up specific evidence at the moment, but I'm
refering to the brouhaha a few months ago (Jan-Mar? ICANN budget-time) where
we argued exactly this issue. I don't exactly recall the result.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 4:08 AM
> To: 'Roeland Meyer'; Gomes, Chuck; [email-masked]'; DNSO Secretariat
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [announce] NC telecon 16 August 2001 - agenda
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you are referring to.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 11:21 PM
> To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; Roeland Meyer; [email-masked]'; DNSO Secretariat
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Re: [announce] NC telecon 16 August 2001 - agenda
> 
> 
> > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 7:48 AM
> > 
> > Roland,
> > 
> > ICANN does not fund the DNSO.  The DNSO is self-funding.
> 
> Ten what was that bit about DNSO funding, in the ICANN BoD meeting?
> --
> 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, 2 Aug 2001 13:24:47 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] NSI Supports Forcing All Domain Disputes to Virginia

- --part1_7a.189fb593.289ae6df_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

EFF Media release:

Excerpt:  "San Francisco - The EFF expressed dismay that Network Solutions, 
Inc. (NSI) has stepped in to support the opposing side in an EFF case 
involving a dispute between Canadian parties over a Canadian trademark. NSI 
filed an amicus brief supporting the position that small domain holders 
located all over the world should be forced to defend their domain names in 
Virginia simply because NSI, which holds the master list of domain names, is 
located there. "  

Full story at:  
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/SLAPP/Forum_shopping/Heathmount_v_Technodome.com

/20010802_eff_nsi_pr.html

- --part1_7a.189fb593.289ae6df_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3>EFF Media release:
<BR>
<BR>Excerpt: &nbsp;"<I>San Francisco</I> - The EFF expressed dismay that Network Solutions, 
<BR>Inc. (NSI) has stepped in to support the opposing side in an EFF case 
<BR>involving a dispute between Canadian parties over a Canadian trademark. NSI 
<BR>filed an amicus brief supporting the position that small domain holders 
<BR>located all over the world should be forced to defend their domain names in 
<BR>Virginia simply because NSI, which holds the master list of domain names, is 
<BR>located there. " &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>Full story at: &nbsp;
<BR>http://www.eff.org/Censorship/SLAPP/Forum_shopping/Heathmount_v_Technodome.com
<BR>
<BR>/20010802_eff_nsi_pr.html
<BR>
<BR>    
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_7a.189fb593.289ae6df_boundary--
- --
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, 2 Aug 2001 13:57:32 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] VeriSign WHOIS database research and development project

- --part1_22.19aede2b.289aee8c_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The following notice was recently posted to the registrars list:

VeriSign and the Chamber of Commerce invite you to participate in an open 
forum to discuss the future of the WhoIs database research and development 
project.  VeriSign is working on investing time and resources into a more 
advanced infrastructure for a universal WhoIs service.  You are invited to 
participate in the discussion on August 15th,10:00am to 12:00 Noon at the 
Chamber of Commerce, 1615 H St., N.W.Washington, DC.  If you have specific 
suggestions for the type of research and development project that VeriSign 
should undertake, please come prepared to make a five minute presentation. 
Thank you for your interest and we look forward to your participation.  
Please RSVP to Shane Tews at [email-masked] <<A HREF="mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</A>>, 
202.966.6600.   

- --part1_22.19aede2b.289aee8c_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3>The following notice was recently posted to the registrars list:
<BR>
<BR>VeriSign and the Chamber of Commerce invite you to participate in an open 
<BR>forum to discuss the future of the WhoIs database research and development 
<BR>project. &nbsp;VeriSign is working on investing time and resources into a more 
<BR>advanced infrastructure for a universal WhoIs service.  You are invited to 
<BR>participate in the discussion on August 15th,10:00am to 12:00 Noon at the 
<BR>Chamber of Commerce, 1615 H St., N.W.Washington, DC. &nbsp;If you have specific 
<BR>suggestions for the type of research and development project that VeriSign 
<BR>should undertake, please come prepared to make a five minute presentation. 
<BR>Thank you for your interest and we look forward to your participation. &nbsp;
<BR>Please RSVP to Shane Tews at [email-masked] &lt;<A HREF="mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</A>&gt;, 
<BR>202.966.6600. &nbsp; 
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_22.19aede2b.289aee8c_boundary--
- --
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 14:51:15 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

DPF wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:43:44 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >erica wrote:
> >
> >> Can we move on to discuss the broad objectives of the proposed constituency
> >> and funding issues?
> >
> >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."
>
> I know I shouldn't do too many "me too"posts but what Sotiris said
> works for me.

Thanks David.

So far, myself, David and Joop...  anyone else?

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, 02 Aug 2001 12:19:41 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

- --------------57BEC141793EE3F3823BDADA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I think you need to clarify by saying something like "ICANN internal
policy formulation bodies and functions."

Or "bodies and functions that formulate internal ICANN policies."

Although "IRC" also = "Internal Revenue Code," if the constituency
is to be limited to natural persons, I reluctantly conclude also that the
Individual Registrants Constituency is about the only way to go.

But we also have the IDNO going -- are there two of these going
now? Which one responds to the Board meeting concerning the
establishment of an Individuals Constituency? Are these two in
competition, are they the same thing, searching for a name? Are
both to co-exist?  The numerous posts on both subjects leave a
pretty hefty mishmash of confusion, methinks.

Bill Lovell

DPF wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:43:44 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >erica wrote:
> >
> >> Can we move on to discuss the broad objectives of the proposed constituency
> >> and funding issues?
> >
> >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."
>
> I know I shouldn't do too many "me too"posts but what Sotiris said
> works for me.
>
> DPF
> --
> [email-masked]
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> 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

- --------------57BEC141793EE3F3823BDADA
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I think you need to clarify by saying something like "ICANN <i>internal</i>
<br>policy formulation bodies and functions."
<p>Or "bodies and functions that formulate internal ICANN policies."
<p>Although "IRC" also = "Internal Revenue Code," if the constituency
<br>is to be limited to natural persons, I reluctantly conclude also that
the
<br>Individual Registrants Constituency is about the only way to go.
<p>But we also have the IDNO going -- are there two of these going
<br>now? Which one responds to the Board meeting concerning the
<br>establishment of an Individuals Constituency? Are these two in
<br>competition, are they the same thing, searching for a name? Are
<br>both to co-exist?&nbsp; The numerous posts on both subjects leave a
<br>pretty hefty mishmash of confusion, methinks.
<p>Bill Lovell
<p>DPF wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:43:44 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos
<br>&lt;[email-masked]> wrote:
<p>>erica wrote:
<br>>
<br>>> Can we move on to discuss the broad objectives of the proposed constituency
<br>>> and funding issues?
<br>>
<br>>A rough blanket statement of the broad objectives of the Individual
Registrants
<br>>Constituency (IRC) might be as follows:
<br>>
<br>>"Mission:&nbsp; To effect and ensure the recognition, representation,
and input of
<br>>Individual Registrants of Domain Names as bona fide stakeholders in
the Domain
<br>>Name System (DNS), through an established and direct voice in all
ICANN policy
<br>>formulation bodies and functions."
<p>I know I shouldn't do too many "me too"posts but what Sotiris said
<br>works for me.
<p>DPF
<br>--
<br>[email-masked]
<br>ICQ 29964527
<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>

- --------------57BEC141793EE3F3823BDADA--

- --
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 15:55:48 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> I think you need to clarify by saying something like "ICANN internal
> policy formulation bodies and functions."

In deference to your savvy Bill, how about the following arrangement:

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 policy
formulation bodies and functions of the ICANN."

I think this wording makes it pretty clear that the policy "bodies and
functions" referred to are those of the ICANN.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

>
>
> Or "bodies and functions that formulate internal ICANN policies."
>
> Although "IRC" also = "Internal Revenue Code," if the constituency
> is to be limited to natural persons, I reluctantly conclude also that the
> Individual Registrants Constituency is about the only way to go.
>
> But we also have the IDNO going -- are there two of these going
> now? Which one responds to the Board meeting concerning the
> establishment of an Individuals Constituency? Are these two in
> competition, are they the same thing, searching for a name? Are
> both to co-exist?  The numerous posts on both subjects leave a
> pretty hefty mishmash of confusion, methinks.
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> DPF wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:43:44 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>> >erica wrote:
>> >
>> >> Can we move on to discuss the broad objectives of the proposed
>> constituency
>> >> and funding issues?
>> >
>> >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."
>>
>> I know I shouldn't do too many "me too"posts but what Sotiris said
>> works for me.
>>
>> DPF
>> --
>> [email-masked]
>> ICQ 29964527
>> --
>> 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
>

- --
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: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 00:06:46 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

Dear Sotiris,
could you translate that into basic English please?  :-)
Is that very different from "representing the Registrants at the DNSO".
1- as you may know every DN is subject to the same contract, signed
     the same way by an unique individual name.
2- a support organisation is not a Justice Court. It is a cooperative
     effort to produce policy statements.
3- there are chances that the DNSO becomes an independent body
     with a contract with the ICANN. So whatever the result it will be
     no part of the ICANN.
Cheers.
Jefsey

On 21:55 02/08/01, Sotiris Sotiropoulos said:
>"William S. Lovell" wrote:
>
> > I think you need to clarify by saying something like "ICANN internal
> > policy formulation bodies and functions."
>
>In deference to your savvy Bill, how about the following arrangement:
>
>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 policy
>formulation bodies and functions of the ICANN."
>
>I think this wording makes it pretty clear that the policy "bodies and
>functions" referred to are those of the ICANN.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> >
> >
> > Or "bodies and functions that formulate internal ICANN policies."
> >
> > Although "IRC" also = "Internal Revenue Code," if the constituency
> > is to be limited to natural persons, I reluctantly conclude also that the
> > Individual Registrants Constituency is about the only way to go.
> >
> > But we also have the IDNO going -- are there two of these going
> > now? Which one responds to the Board meeting concerning the
> > establishment of an Individuals Constituency? Are these two in
> > competition, are they the same thing, searching for a name? Are
> > both to co-exist?  The numerous posts on both subjects leave a
> > pretty hefty mishmash of confusion, methinks.
> >
> > Bill Lovell
> >
> > DPF wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:43:44 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >erica wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Can we move on to discuss the broad objectives of the proposed
> >> constituency
> >> >> and funding issues?
> >> >
> >> >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."
> >>
> >> I know I shouldn't do too many "me too"posts but what Sotiris said
> >> works for me.
> >>
> >> DPF
> >> --
> >> [email-masked]
> >> ICQ 29964527
> >> --
> >> 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
> >
>
>--
>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, 2 Aug 2001 18:40:17 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] The clock is ticking...

- --part1_66.125bbf92.289b30d1_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Roger Cochetti's comments to the Names Council Budget Committee list:

Excerpt:  "If we conclude that the Council intended to apply these procedures 
for failures to pay 2001 and later dues, then my calculation is that three 
Constituencies will lose their voting privileges on August 18 (120 daysafter 
the April 18th date of the DNSO invoice to them):  the Business, the ccTLD, 
and the ISP Constituencies.  [ ICANN management did not invoice the 
Non-Commercial Constituency on April 19th, and does not seem to have invoiced 
them until July of 2001, in which case the clock for that Constituency would 
seem to have not started ticking until about three months later then the 
others.]    
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-budget/Arc00/msg00474.html

- --part1_66.125bbf92.289b30d1_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3>Roger Cochetti's comments to the Names Council Budget Committee list:
<BR>
<BR>Excerpt: &nbsp;"If we conclude that the Council intended to apply these procedures 
<BR>for failures to pay 2001 and later dues, then my calculation is that three 
<BR>Constituencies will lose their voting privileges on August 18 (120 daysafter 
<BR>the April 18th date of the DNSO invoice to them): &nbsp;the Business, the ccTLD, 
<BR>and the ISP Constituencies. &nbsp;[ ICANN management did not invoice the 
<BR>Non-Commercial Constituency on April 19th, and does not seem to have invoiced 
<BR>them until July of 2001, in which case the clock for that Constituency would 
<BR>seem to have not started ticking until about three months later then the 
<BR>others.]    
<BR>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-budget/Arc00/msg00474.html
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_66.125bbf92.289b30d1_boundary--
- --
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 #645
************************