Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #648
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, August 7 2001           Volume 01 : Number 648

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

Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 21:02:19 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived

- --part1_c4.1836b51c.289f469b_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I wish to thank the Secretariat for making public the Review Task Force 
mailing list:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc01/

This "first" message was posted to it two days ago by Philip Sheppard:

1. Working groups. Lead: Philip. 
- - "To turn the WG D procedures into a sharper set of guidelines".  
I posted this to the virtual site early July and have had no comment yet. 
Please look at it and either tell me OK or suggest a change. I will construe 
silence as consent. Deadline 15 August. ACTION ALL PLEASE.
 
2. Web-based fora as alternatives to lists. Lead Peter.  We are evaluating a 
site. Comments later.

3. GA Chair  Lead Philip
I propose that the present system for selecting the GA chair (GA nominations, 
10 endorsements, approval by the NC should be kept and added to the NC rules 
of procedure.
I have not heard any objection to this. Roberto - please give your view. 
Deadline August 15. ACTION all.

4. Constituency formation / individuals constituency Lead Axel
I propose we FIRST draft criteria for ANY new constituency including need, 
uniqueness, potential contribution and representativeness.
Axel - please advise progress and post to the virtual workroom. Deadline 
August 15.

5. Language diversity/ translation of DNSO papers Lead Milton
To be practical here (from the cost perspective) I believe we should look at 
use of web based auto translators. Has an evaluation been done of these by a 
university language school ? Surely yes? Milton - please advise progress 
and/or post a document to the virtual workroom. Deadline August 15.

6. Consensus.  Lead Milton
Recommend to the NC a practical definition of consensus for the purposes of 
NC consultation activities.
Milton had earlier thoughts on this suggesting that we should drop the word 
consensus and just suggest certain majority or super majority rules for DNSO 
groups. This seems like a good way forward. Milton - please advise progress 
or post to the virtual workroom. Deadline Aug 15.

- --------
Please note:  the "virtual workroom" is at <A HREF="http://www.virtualworkroom.net/vwr/">http://www.virtualworkroom.net/vwr/
</A>  

- --part1_c4.1836b51c.289f469b_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3>I wish to thank the Secretariat for making public the Review Task Force 
<BR>mailing list:
<BR>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc01/
<BR>
<BR>This "first" message was posted to it two days ago by Philip Sheppard:</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><B>
<BR>
<BR>1. Working groups. Lead: Philip</B>. </FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">- "To turn the WG D procedures into a sharper set of guidelines". &nbsp;</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">I posted this to the virtual site early July and have had no comment yet. 
<BR>Please look at it and either tell me OK or suggest a change. I will construe 
<BR>silence as consent. <B>Deadline 15 August.</B> <B>ACTION ALL PLEASE.</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B>
<BR> 
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><B>2.</B> <B>Web-based fora as alternatives to lists</B>. <B>Lead Peter</B>. &nbsp;We are evaluating a 
<BR>site. Comments later.
<BR>
<BR><B>3. GA Chair &nbsp;Lead Philip</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">I propose that the present system for selecting the GA chair (GA nominations, 
<BR>10 endorsements, approval by the NC should be kept and added to the NC rules 
<BR>of procedure.</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">I have not heard any objection to this. Roberto - please give your view. 
<BR>Deadline August 15. <B>ACTION all.</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR><B>4. Constituency formation / individuals constituency Lead Axel</B>
<BR>I propose we FIRST draft criteria for ANY new constituency including need, 
<BR>uniqueness, potential contribution and representativeness.
<BR><B>Axel - please advise progress and post to the virtual workroom. Deadline 
<BR>August 15.</B>
<BR>
<BR><B>5. Language diversity/ translation of DNSO papers Lead Milton</B>
<BR>To be practical here (from the cost perspective) I believe we should look at 
<BR>use of web based auto translators. Has an evaluation been done of these by a 
<BR>university language school ? Surely yes? <B>Milton - please advise progress 
<BR>and/or post a document to the virtual workroom. Deadline August 15.</B>
<BR>
<BR><B>6. Consensus. &nbsp;Lead Milton</B>
<BR>Recommend to the NC a practical definition of consensus for the purposes of 
<BR>NC consultation activities.
<BR>Milton had earlier thoughts on this suggesting that we should drop the word 
<BR>consensus and just suggest certain majority or super majority rules for DNSO 
<BR>groups. This seems like a good way forward. <B>Milton - please advise progress 
<BR>or post to the virtual workroom. Deadline Aug 15.</B>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>--------
<BR>Please note: &nbsp;the "virtual workroom" is at </FONT><FONT  COLOR="#0000ff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><A HREF="http://www.virtualworkroom.net/vwr/">http://www.virtualworkroom.net/vwr/
<BR></A> &nbsp;</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>    
<BR>    
<BR></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_c4.1836b51c.289f469b_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: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 21:06:50 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] New Archives posted

- --part1_73.110232b8.289f47aa_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The archives page has been reworked by our Secretariat, and is at this URL:
http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

The page links to GA and NC archives, including all the new archives for the 
NC Task Forces.

- --part1_73.110232b8.289f47aa_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3>The archives page has been reworked by our Secretariat, and is at this URL:
<BR>http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><B>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B>The page links to GA and NC archives, including all the new archives for the 
<BR>NC Task Forces.</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_73.110232b8.289f47aa_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: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 03:30:59 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

Dear Jamie,
IMHO we may consider things two ways.

Either to have the ICANN to extend to address such problems,
or the ICANN to redeem down to its scope and these problems
either to disapear or to addressed by who is competent.

Handful of TLD? Problem only created by iCANN.

UDRP?  Problem created to protect the ICANN from being involved.
              NeuLevel case shows that it does not work
              My protection as a TM Holder is poorly protected. Other
              easier and simpler arbitration solutions.

Safe-Harbor. Out of ICANN scope - unless it controls NSA/Fincen
                    and Echelon.

These problems are certainly interesting. But the ICANN IMHO is
incompetent. However the ICANN is an ideal forum to help these
problems to be discussed under technical feasiblity control.

This is why I propose a Consumation Advisory Committee (CAC)
to be created to gather organizations like yours from every country
- - as a counterpart or a complement to the GAC. But the role of the
ICANN would be pure hosting and international secretariat provision.

Jefsey

On 01:59 06/08/01, James Love said:
>Kent, your comment was pretty unfair, IMO.  The problem is the other way
>around. ICANN itself has set out an agenda which is much more than
>technical.  Why do we have a handful of TLDs?  Technical problems?   Why
>do we have a UDRP?  Technical issues?   Why do we have anti-privacy
>policies?  Technical issues?  When you make policy decisions, then
>people care who has the power, and how they are selected.
>
>Jamie

- --
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: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 23:15:56 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived

Thanks for posting this, Danny.

A couple of comments on the agenda items 1 and 6...

"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 1. Working groups. Lead: Philip.
> - "To turn the WG D procedures into a sharper set of guidelines".
> I posted this to the virtual site early July and have had no comment yet.
> Please look at it and either tell me OK or suggest a change. I will construe
> silence as consent. Deadline 15 August. ACTION ALL PLEASE.

Keep in mind that the guidelines proposed by WG-D are light and flexible *by
design.* We looked at alternatives, tried some more rigid guidelines in
earlier drafts, and came to the conclusion that the rules ought to be
flexible enough to account for a variety of issues and modes of working.
Those who had participated in many IETF working groups felt particularly
strong about the need to maintain lightweight and flexible rules of
procedure.

> 6. Consensus.  Lead Milton
> Recommend to the NC a practical definition of consensus for the purposes of
> NC consultation activities.
> Milton had earlier thoughts on this suggesting that we should drop the word
> consensus and just suggest certain majority or super majority rules for DNSO
> groups. This seems like a good way forward. Milton - please advise progress
> or post to the virtual workroom. Deadline Aug 15.

Dropping the word "consensus" would be a mistake for the simple reason that
all of the contracts with registries and registrars bind those entities to
ICANN "consensus policies." That term has a particular legal significance
within ICANN. Since you can't rewrite those contracts, you'll want to draft
you rules in account for them. You don't want to run the risk that the NC
passes something but the affected parties aren't bound because what the NC
did doesn't meet the definition in the contracts about what is a
"consensus."

     -- Bret

- --
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: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:26:15 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA participation on IDN Task Force

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01C11E59.D71E62E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Danny,
we would welcome one member of the GA participating in the IDN task =
force. As you indicate it makes sense for all concerned if you arrange =
to elect this person at the same time as you elect a GA participant for =
the dot org task force.

Philip.
NC Chair

- ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01C11E59.D71E62E0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Danny,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>we would welcome one member of the GA participating =
in the IDN=20
task force. As you indicate it makes sense for all concerned if you =
arrange=20
to&nbsp;elect this person at the same time as you elect a GA participant =
for the=20
dot org task force.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>NC Chair</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01C11E59.D71E62E0--

- --
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: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:38:43 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA chair's request about Individuals' Constituency

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_006C_01C11E5B.9514A560
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Danny,=20
Thank you for widely posting your comments on an individuals =
constituency. As you know new constituencies are a part of the NC =
business plan and handled by the Review task force. That TF will be the =
conduit for a recommendation to the NC on matters within its competence.

 As a matter of procedure your request would best be directed to the =
chair of the TF. As that is myself I will assume that request has been =
made.=20

Please send me one document based on previous GA discussion which =
outlines the rationale for an Individuals constituency together with =
information on the level of support and dissent for the proposal. On =
receipt I will table this for discussion with the task force.

Philip Sheppard
NC Chair
Chair review Task Force

- ------=_NextPart_000_006C_01C11E5B.9514A560
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Danny, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Thank you for widely posting your comments on an =
individuals=20
constituency. As you know new constituencies are a&nbsp;part of the NC =
business=20
plan and handled by the Review task force. That TF will be the conduit =
for a=20
recommendation to the NC on matters within its competence.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>&nbsp;As a matter of procedure your request would =
best be=20
directed to the chair of the TF. As that is myself I will assume that =
request=20
has been made. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Please send me one document based on previous GA =
discussion=20
which outlines the rationale for an Individuals constituency together =
with=20
information on the level of support and dissent for the proposal. On =
receipt I=20
will table this for discussion with the task force.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip Sheppard</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>NC Chair</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Chair review Task Force</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_006C_01C11E5B.9514A560--

- --
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: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 20:44:19 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "To represent the unrepresented"

At 09:38 6/08/01 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:

>Please send me one document based on previous GA discussion which outlines 
>the rationale for an Individuals constituency together with information on 
>the level of support and dissent for the proposal. On receipt I will table 
>this for discussion with the task force.

The rationale for the Constituency was presented to the GA in Santiago in 
the form of a presentation.

I will list the catchphrases, which made up the core of the presentation, 
for the Chair's benefit.

Rationale for  the Individuals' Constituency:  To represent the unrepresented.
Domain Name Regulation is proposed without the voting participation of the 
regulated.

We are needed in the DNDSO to provide balance.
The Internet *is* about Individuals.
The current DNSO, without the (already then) proposed Individual Domain 
Name Holders' Constituency, is the result of the Singapore compromise to 
accommodate the IP lobby. This was wrong.

Individual Domain Name Holders are stakeholders: they have a personal stake.
They make up a large percentage of the total Registrants.

Our participation in the GA and the workgroups is useless, if we do not 
have a representative to vote for us on the Names Council.

The level of support and opposion to an Individuals' Constituency is best 
illustrated by the Yokohama GA vote on the issue: 67 for and 3 against.

- --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: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 21:23:25 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "To represent the unrepresented"

At 20:44 6/08/01 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:

>The level of support and opposion to an Individuals' Constituency is best 
>illustrated by the Yokohama GA vote on the issue: 67 for and 3 against.

Correction: on checking the record I found there were 65 for and 3 against. 
My apologies.

- --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: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 13:56:07 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "To represent the unrepresented"

Dear Philip, Danny and Joop,
The case of the future ".name" registrants should not be part of a 
constituency request. However this new TLD calls for past demands to be 
worked a bit more (this does not change the value of Joop's points).

What you actually ask for is a representation of the Individual Registrants.
What I ask for is a representation of the individual users.
These are two separated issues part of larger scopes.

The current ALSC works and questions might lead to a clearer distribution 
of the constituencies in the DNSO and in the @large representation. The 
premature closing of the WG-Review does not permit the necessary dialog we 
need today. So let try to resume the debate on the DNSO point of view.

If we consider the ALSC propositions (when they keep the DNSO) they propose 
it to be made of the gTLD, (I suppose the sTLD),  the ccTLD and the 
Registrar Constituencies. Such an approach calls for three other 
constituencies: the Registrants, the Internet Users and the DNS developpers.

Now, on the @large side we will have also a need to represent Registrants 
(content provider, webmasters, stakeholdsers) and the Internet Users as two 
separated groups, different from "Consummers"as new forms of Internet usage 
are with us (webTV, telecontrol,  telephone, datasaving, moneytransfer, ... 
) with new protection needs, when the Internet is totally hidden to the 
consumer.

Question is about one or two Registrant constituencies. IMHO individual 
registrants may only benefit from an alliance with corporate registrants. 
But there are obvious concerns (education, registration procedures, 
sunrise, renewal management, protection, management complexity, relations 
with Registrars, insurrances, language, bundled propositions, etc. which 
are specific to Individual Registrants). So I would strongly recommand two 
Registrant constituencies. An Individual Registrant and a Corporate Registrant.

The same rationale should apply to Internet Users as their motivations and 
the dangers resulting from not taking them into consideration are extremely 
different. Corporate Users will be concerned by the protection of the DNS 
exchanges, new forms of directories based upon the DNS, value added DNS 
services, VPN deployment, DN semantic, additional addressing plans, 
proposition of new services, etc... Individual Users will be more 
interested in proximity addressing, smart addressing, switch to other 
possible consensa (the Internet is only our consensus to use the TCP/IP 
protocol set, the IP addressing plan and the DNS: this consensus may change 
due to new technologies, confusion or limitations on addressing, DN mess, 
prices, alternative offers, etc...).

A DNS innovation/development constituency is of the essence. Initial 
thinking has privileged the "nets" aspect - protocol, services, RFCs. The 
DNS is the translation of the "Inter" aspect of the Internet. This has not 
been been fully accepted yet by some of the elders who still consider the 
Internet as a centralized network using the ICANN "governance" instead of 
IANA functions, the TLD "contracts" instead of TLD management declaration , 
hierachical  DNS instead of multi-layered, fossilized DN concepts instead 
of innovative thinking, etc... The DNSO needs a constituency of the Future 
DNS where the market demand, the dreamers and the developpers may meet and 
shape the evolution of the system and devise/advise on the possibilities 
coming from new developments (example: mumti-view, multi-roots).

On 10:44 06/08/01, Joop Teernstra said:
>At 09:38 6/08/01 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>
>>Please send me one document based on previous GA discussion which 
>>outlines the rationale for an Individuals constituency together with 
>>information on the level of support and dissent for the proposal. On 
>>receipt I will table this for discussion with the task force.
>
>The rationale for the Constituency was presented to the GA in Santiago in 
>the form of a presentation.
>I will list the catchphrases, which made up the core of the presentation, 
>for the Chair's benefit.
>
>Rationale for  the Individuals' Constituency:  To represent the unrepresented.

True. Full support. But at two levels:
- - as participants to the Internet operations and this mainly means at DNSO
- - as stakeholders in the Internet development and this mainly means @large

>Domain Name Regulation is proposed without the voting participation of the 
>regulated.

200% true.

>We are needed in the DNDSO to provide balance.
>The Internet *is* about Individuals.
>The current DNSO, without the (already then) proposed Individual Domain 
>Name Holders' Constituency, is the result of the Singapore compromise to 
>accommodate the IP lobby. This was wrong.

This compromise was testified about by Joe Sims. That testimony is in the 
WG-Review archives quoted by one of the Members. This explains the whole 
problem of the DNSO. A search on "Sims and Jennings" in the archives (I am 
not familiar with that)?

>Individual Domain Name Holders are stakeholders: they have a personal stake.
>They make up a large percentage of the total Registrants.
>
>Our participation in the GA and the workgroups is useless, if we do not 
>have a representative to vote for us on the Names Council.

This is the absurd result from the constituency concept. Today the GA has 
one rep to the NC, what is already a good move. But the NC Members should 
be elected by the GA after "constituency" endorsement.

>The level of support and opposion to an Individuals' Constituency is best 
>illustrated by the Yokohama GA vote on the issue: 67 for and 3 against.

We can take a vote today. This is only opposed today by the IPC constituency.

I note however that the IPC constituency ( http://ipc.songbird.com ) :
- - only permits International and National organizations to be represented
- - denies individual TM holders do nominate candidates to the NC
- - has no open mailing list
- - the link to the Membership documentation page is broken

It would be of real interest to understand better the rationale of the IPC 
and if an IPC/Individuals committee has ever been considered. The IPC might 
have reasons we do not fully understand. I think that a common effort 
should be done to get a better mutual understanding. I have applied today 
to the IPC (I hold two TMs and I feel their policy does not fully match my 
interests: this education effort might be a first positive step. I will 
report on it).

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: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 17:12:34 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived

on 8/5/01 9:02 PM, [email-masked] at [email-masked] wrote:

> I wish to thank the Secretariat for making public the Review Task Force
> mailing list:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc01/
> 
> This "first" message was posted to it two days ago by Philip Sheppard:
> 
> 1. Working groups. Lead: Philip.
> - "To turn the WG D procedures into a sharper set of guidelines".
> I posted this to the virtual site early July and have had no comment yet.
> Please look at it and either tell me OK or suggest a change. I will construe
> silence as consent. Deadline 15 August. ACTION ALL PLEASE.
> 
> 2. Web-based fora as alternatives to lists. Lead Peter.  We are evaluating a
> site. Comments later.

Peter,
Please keep the GA informed of any proposed changes with respect to normal
Task Force procedures. This may be concern some members. Thank you.

> 
> 3. GA Chair  Lead Philip
> I propose that the present system for selecting the GA chair (GA nominations,
> 10 endorsements, approval by the NC should be kept and added to the NC rules
> of procedure.
> I have not heard any objection to this. Roberto - please give your view.
> Deadline August 15. ACTION all.

Roberto. A resounding No. First, point me to the rule that says GA
nominations require 10 endorsements, thoe are NC procedures, not the GA's,
and the fact that they are is a figment of Philip's imagination I'm afraid.
Second, a Motion to change the Bylaws to allow the GA to elect its own Chair
was formally presented to both WG-Review and the GA under the Chairmanship
of Greg Burton, which the NC supported by its own policies during the last
Election. A formal motion was drafted (by me as it happens) seconded and
voted on, receiving unanimous support from all GA members, with the possible
exception of yourself (if memory serves me correctly). With the greatest
respect, you cannot now chose to go completely against valid consensus
building procedures that were undertaken within only recently during the
last few months simply because it is not the result you seek.

It is this kind of games playing by the NC that is counterproductive and
causes increased resentment within the GA. I regret this decision has
already been made and by a far greater range and number of affected
stakeholders than the NC can possibly muster in this very limited Task
Force. I would remind you that under the rules of cricket, when an over is
over, it is over and a losing player cannot ask for a rematch simply because
he is captain of the team.

Regards,
Joanna 

> 
> 4. Constituency formation / individuals constituency Lead Axel
> I propose we FIRST draft criteria for ANY new constituency including need,
> uniqueness, potential contribution and representativeness.
> Axel - please advise progress and post to the virtual workroom. Deadline
> August 15.
> 
> 5. Language diversity/ translation of DNSO papers Lead Milton
> To be practical here (from the cost perspective) I believe we should look at
> use of web based auto translators. Has an evaluation been done of these by a
> university language school ? Surely yes? Milton - please advise progress
> and/or post a document to the virtual workroom. Deadline August 15.
> 
> 6. Consensus.  Lead Milton
> Recommend to the NC a practical definition of consensus for the purposes of
> NC consultation activities.
> Milton had earlier thoughts on this suggesting that we should drop the word
> consensus and just suggest certain majority or super majority rules for DNSO
> groups. This seems like a good way forward. Milton - please advise progress
> or post to the virtual workroom. Deadline Aug 15.
> 
> --------
> Please note:  the "virtual workroom" is at <A
> HREF="http://www.virtualworkroom.net/vwr/">http://www.virtualworkroom.net/vwr/
> </A>  
> 
> 
> 
> 

- --
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: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 21:39:15 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Documentation request

- --part1_117.2bac5ef.28a0a0c3_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en

Dear Philip,

Thank you for your reply.  You have asked for documentation that outlines th=
e=20
rationale for an Individuals' Constituency together with information on the=20
level of support and dissent for the proposal.

I will begin by citing the work-product of the Review Working Group:

The Preliminary report --=20
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01434.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01440.html

Notable excerpts from the preliminary report: =20

"The most visible and audible demand from Review WG apart from "Drop the=20
Constituencies" is to recognize "Individual Domain Name Holders/Owners" in=20
the Internet Policy-making process since its beginning."=20

"[Q] Do you favor the admission to the DNSO of an Individual DN holder's=20
constituency?  Total number of voters: 32    Favour such a constituency    3=
0=20
votes    93.75% (distinction IDNO/IDNH ignored) Against such a Constituency=20=
=20
2  votes     6.25%"

The Review Working Group Report on Constituencies -- (this one is 83 pages=20
long):
http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3AA2E47100000022 =20=
 =20

Notable excerpts:

"The WG Review has reached a consensus that a new Constituency be added to=20
represent Individual Domain Name Registrants. This WG is not going to addres=
s=20
how to implement this new Constituency, nor is it going to propose what grou=
p=20
should represent them or how it is to be formed. We only present that one=20
should be formed or selected within six months. We ask that this process be=20
expedited in this way because we believe it to be an oversight not to have=20
included them in the process to begin with. We further hope that you would=20
put this matter on the agenda as a top priority and seek public comment on=20
how this constituency shall be formed and how it will contribute to the ICAN=
N=20
Budget."   =20

"I have been watching carefully and so far I have not seen a single person=20
oppose the principle that the DNSO should have an IDNH constituency. In fact=
=20
to my great pleasure several members of the Names Council have explicitly=20
posted in favour of this."

The Final Report -- WG Review Recommendations to the ICANN Board:
http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3ADB39BF00000043

Notable excerpt: =20

"Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board immediately begin seeking=20
proposals for the implementation and self-organization of an Individual=E2=
=80=99s=20
Constituency(=E2=80=9CIC=E2=80=9D)."

You may wish to also take note of the following proposed measure by Director=
=20
Auerbach, who was also an active member in the Review WG:

Proposed Resolution Regarding a DNSO Constituency for Individuals Who Own=20
Domain Names

Recognizing that individuals who have registered domain names have a=20
significant stake in domain name policy;=20
Recognizing that the creation of new DNSO constituencies is subject to the=20
requirements of Article VI, Section 3 of the ICANN By-Laws;
Recognizing that there is a long-standing community consensus for the=20
formation of a constituency for individuals who have registered domain names=
;
Recognizing that there have been difficulties in the formation of a stable=20
entity to act as the basis for such a constituency;
The ICANN Board of Directors Resolves:

The ICANN Board of Directors declares its desire that there be formed a DNSO=
=20
constituency for individuals who have registered domain names.=20
That the ICANN Board of Directors requests that the Internet Community=20
self-organize and create one or more detailed and concrete proposals for a=20
DNSO constituency for individuals who have registered domain names.=20
Such proposals shall be presented to ICANN before its year 2001 annual=20
meeting.=20
Such proposals shall describe at least the following:=20
The proposed structure=20
Sources of funding=20
Criteria for membership=20
Willingness to reconcile differences with others who have submitted proposal=
s=20
The ICANN Board of Directors expresses its intention to promptly consider=20
such proposals and hopes that a constituency for individuals who have=20
registered domain names may soon be formed.=20

http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/diary/june-4-2001.htm=20

   =20
With regard to dissent, we have this one comment made by Theresa Swinehart:

"Comments received during the DNSO review process indicate that while there=20
is not consensus on the need for an Individual Domain Name Holders=20
Constituency, there has been sufficient discussion to support.  Suggest the=20
next step is to explore its establishment."

Ms. Swinehart (as her justification for declaring a lack of consensus) cites=
=20
to footnote #40:
Text adopted by the WG on the individuals'constituency question <A HREF=3D"h=
ttp://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01825.html">
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01825.html</A>, adopted by a=20=
vote=20
of 17 yes, 1 no, 3 don't know.=20

This hyperlink also references the following vote:

"Among the questions referred to this WG by the task force is the question:=20=
=20
Should there be a constituency for individuals?  Of the 31 respondents, 29=20
answered "yes".   In a similar poll run in the more secure polling booth, 37=
=20
of 40 respondents answered affirmitavely." --Greg Burton, Co-chair WG-Review=
   =20

In each above-cited case, a supra-majority prevailed.  By most every metric,=
=20
this would be deemed consensus.

There was one other comment made by a single IPC officer who stated "I would=
=20
be against introducing any new constituencies at the present time."   One=20
other mild comment was received from the AIPLA:  "We offer no comments on=20
whether seven constituencies is the appropriate number. We do believe,=20
however, that user interests are reasonably represented in the existing=20
constituency groups."
<A HREF=3D"http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00107.html">htt=
p://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00107.html</A>

In addition to the efforts of the Review Working Group, we also have on=20
record the affirmative votes of the General Assembly:

Yokohama vote:  65 for, 3 against
Stockholm vote:  75 for, 15 against

I can appreciate the fact that you may not be aware of the extent of=20
documented support for this initiative (as some documents were posted after=20
the formal closure of the Working Group), but we contributing members will b=
e=20
happy to provide the new Review TF with all the necessary citations out of=20
the over 3300 comments posted to the Review list... =20

If a historical perspective is required, I am sure that we can also locate=20
every comment on the GA list dating back to 1999 in support of such a=20
constituency. =20

Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. =20

Best regards,
Danny

   =20

   =20

   =20

   =20

   =20

   =20

   =20

   =20

   =20

   =20

- --part1_117.2bac5ef.28a0a0c3_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3D3>Dear Philip,
<BR>
<BR>Thank you for your reply. &nbsp;You have asked for documentation that ou=
tlines the=20
<BR>rationale for an Individuals' Constituency together with information on=20=
the=20
<BR>level of support and dissent for the proposal.
<BR>
<BR>I will begin by citing the work-product of the Review Working Group:
<BR>
<BR><B>The Preliminary report</B> --=20
<BR>http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01434.html
<BR>http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01440.html
<BR>
<BR>Notable excerpts from the preliminary report: &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>"The most visible and audible demand from Review WG apart from "Drop the=
=20
<BR>Constituencies" is to recognize "Individual Domain Name Holders/Owners"=20=
in=20
<BR>the Internet Policy-making process since its beginning."=20
<BR>
<BR>"[Q] Do you favor the admission to the DNSO of an Individual DN holder's=
=20
<BR>constituency? &nbsp;Total number of voters: 32 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Favour=20=
such a constituency &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;30=20
<BR>votes &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;93.75% (distinction IDNO/IDNH ignored) Against s=
uch a Constituency &nbsp;
<BR>2 &nbsp;votes &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6.25%"
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><B>The Review Working Group Report on Constituencies</B> -- (this one is=
 83 pages=20
<BR>long):
<BR>http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3AA2E471000000=
22 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>Notable excerpts:
<BR>
<BR>"The WG Review has reached a consensus that a new Constituency be added=20=
to=20
<BR>represent Individual Domain Name Registrants. This WG is not going to ad=
dress=20
<BR>how to implement this new Constituency, nor is it going to propose what=20=
group=20
<BR>should represent them or how it is to be formed. We only present that on=
e=20
<BR>should be formed or selected within six months. We ask that this process=
 be=20
<BR>expedited in this way because we believe it to be an oversight not to ha=
ve=20
<BR>included them in the process to begin with. We further hope that you wou=
ld=20
<BR>put this matter on the agenda as a top priority and seek public comment=20=
on=20
<BR>how this constituency shall be formed and how it will contribute to the=20=
ICANN=20
<BR>Budget."   =20
<BR>
<BR>"I have been watching carefully and so far I have not seen a single pers=
on=20
<BR>oppose the principle that the DNSO should have an IDNH constituency. In=20=
fact=20
<BR>to my great pleasure several members of the Names Council have explicitl=
y=20
<BR>posted in favour of this."
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><B>The Final Report -- WG Review Recommendations to the ICANN Board</B>:
<BR>http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3ADB39BF000000=
43
<BR>
<BR>Notable excerpt: &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>"Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board immediately begin seek=
ing=20
<BR>proposals for the implementation and self-organization of an Individual=
=E2=80=99s=20
<BR>Constituency(=E2=80=9CIC=E2=80=9D)."
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>You may wish to also take note of the following proposed measure by Dire=
ctor=20
<BR>Auerbach, who was also an active member in the Review WG:
<BR>
<BR>Proposed Resolution Regarding a DNSO Constituency for Individuals Who Ow=
n=20
<BR>Domain Names
<BR>
<BR>Recognizing that individuals who have registered domain names have a=20
<BR>significant stake in domain name policy;=20
<BR>Recognizing that the creation of new DNSO constituencies is subject to t=
he=20
<BR>requirements of Article VI, Section 3 of the ICANN By-Laws;
<BR>Recognizing that there is a long-standing community consensus for the=20
<BR>formation of a constituency for individuals who have registered domain n=
ames;
<BR>Recognizing that there have been difficulties in the formation of a stab=
le=20
<BR>entity to act as the basis for such a constituency;
<BR>The ICANN Board of Directors Resolves:
<BR>
<BR>The ICANN Board of Directors declares its desire that there be formed a=20=
DNSO=20
<BR>constituency for individuals who have registered domain names.=20
<BR>That the ICANN Board of Directors requests that the Internet Community=20
<BR>self-organize and create one or more detailed and concrete proposals for=
 a=20
<BR>DNSO constituency for individuals who have registered domain names.=20
<BR>Such proposals shall be presented to ICANN before its year 2001 annual=20
<BR>meeting.=20
<BR>Such proposals shall describe at least the following:=20
<BR>The proposed structure=20
<BR>Sources of funding=20
<BR>Criteria for membership=20
<BR>Willingness to reconcile differences with others who have submitted prop=
osals=20
<BR>The ICANN Board of Directors expresses its intention to promptly conside=
r=20
<BR>such proposals and hopes that a constituency for individuals who have=20
<BR>registered domain names may soon be formed.=20
<BR>
<BR>http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/diary/june-4-2001.htm=20
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Ar=
ial" LANG=3D"0">
<BR> &nbsp; =20
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Ar=
ial" LANG=3D"0">With regard to dissent, we have this one comment made by The=
resa Swinehart:
<BR>
<BR>"Comments received during the DNSO review process indicate that while th=
ere=20
<BR>is not consensus on the need for an Individual Domain Name Holders=20
<BR>Constituency, there has been sufficient discussion to support. &nbsp;Sug=
gest the=20
<BR>next step is to explore its establishment."
<BR>
<BR>Ms. Swinehart (as her justification for declaring a lack of consensus) c=
ites=20
<BR>to footnote #40:
<BR>Text adopted by the WG on the individuals'constituency question <A HREF=
=3D"http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01825.html">
<BR>http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01825.html</A>, adopted b=
y a vote=20
<BR>of 17 yes, 1 no, 3 don't know.=20
<BR>
<BR>This hyperlink also references the following vote:
<BR>
<BR>"Among the questions referred to this WG by the task force is the questi=
on: &nbsp;
<BR>Should there be a constituency for individuals? &nbsp;Of the 31 responde=
nts, 29=20
<BR>answered "yes". &nbsp;&nbsp;In a similar poll run in the more secure pol=
ling booth, 37=20
<BR>of 40 respondents answered affirmitavely." --Greg Burton, Co-chair WG-Re=
view   =20
<BR>
<BR>In each above-cited case, a supra-majority prevailed. &nbsp;By most ever=
y metric,=20
<BR>this would be deemed consensus.
<BR>
<BR>There was one other comment made by a single IPC officer who stated "I w=
ould=20
<BR>be against introducing any new constituencies at the present time." &nbs=
p;&nbsp;One=20
<BR>other mild comment was received from the AIPLA: &nbsp;"We offer no comme=
nts on=20
<BR>whether seven constituencies is the appropriate number. We do believe,=20
<BR>however, that user interests are reasonably represented in the existing=20
<BR>constituency groups."
<BR><A HREF=3D"http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00107.html"=
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00107.html</A>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>In addition to the efforts of the Review Working Group, we also have on=20
<BR>record the affirmative votes of the General Assembly:
<BR>
<BR>Yokohama vote: &nbsp;65 for, 3 against
<BR>Stockholm vote: &nbsp;75 for, 15 against
<BR>
<BR>I can appreciate the fact that you may not be aware of the extent of=20
<BR>documented support for this initiative (as some documents were posted af=
ter=20
<BR>the formal closure of the Working Group), but we contributing members wi=
ll be=20
<BR>happy to provide the new Review TF with all the necessary citations out=20=
of=20
<BR>the over 3300 comments posted to the Review list... &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>If a historical perspective is required, I am sure that we can also loca=
te=20
<BR>every comment on the GA list dating back to 1999 in support of such a=20
<BR>constituency. &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>Best regards,
<BR>Danny
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Ar=
ial" LANG=3D"0">
<BR>
<BR>   =20
<BR>
<BR>   =20
<BR>
<BR> &nbsp; =20
<BR>
<BR>   =20
<BR>
<BR>   =20
<BR>
<BR>   =20
<BR>
<BR>   =20
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>   =20
<BR>
<BR>   =20
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Ar=
ial" LANG=3D"0">
<BR>   =20
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_117.2bac5ef.28a0a0c3_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 #648
************************