Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #650
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, August 7 2001           Volume 01 : Number 650

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

Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 15:44:36 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] a france@large e-democratic achievement

As Chair of france@large I whish to share this with you.

Last year for the @large elections learning from Germany which had been 
very active,  I proposed the French candidates (including the ICANN 
nominees) to meet together face to face, inviting the AFNIC. Then we ran a 
press conference, published several joint press releases and we started a 
common French language mailing list (we are poor at foreign languages :-) ).

After the election this lead france@large to be incorporated as a kernel 
association to support the local and French speaking @large community.

Our first action was to guest Andy Mueller Maghun at the DNSO and at the 
AFNIC in Versailles, meet with the DNSO/BC in Paris and to have a general 
meeting with him at the Parliament. We attended the MDR meeting with Michel 
Baujard, produced the response to the Staff on @large issues ( 
http://icann-fra.org ). We liaised with several possible @large projects. 
We are commonly interviewed on ICANN matters by the press.

The DNSO election to the BoD was an occasion for us to make people aware of 
the DNSO and of what it may mean to the cultural exception and for the 
defense of French, European and other cultural values. This extended mainly 
to French speaking countries (again our poor foreign languages!) with 
results in Canada, Africa, Germany, UK, USA, etc. I cannot give figures yet 
as we have reports that Secretariat has not taken yet into account all the 
registrations they received in the time widow they had specified.

We were not alone in that effort as several associations, ML, individuals 
shared into this endeavor. Interest was good enough since France has now 
proportionally as much DNSO voting Members as the USA. I am happy seeing 
that 2 candidates (we support both obviously) are French and that our 
france-fra mailing list includes the 3 French nominees. As the AFNIC 
Management is also on this  list, you see it is a real non-partisan concept 
which develops, supported by diversified and even opposing people and 
interests.

We intend now to support one or several @large candidates to the AFNIC BoD, 
a better Web Site and to open relations with Consumer Protection and Family 
associations, Local Governments and governmental Internet oriented offices.

Now, I made two dreams:

1. that what we started in Germany and in France be carried for every 
country and culture. Many problems would fade away should the ICANN be 
first an infrastructure oriented association of the National Internet 
Centers and of Local Internet Communities.

2. that our icann-fra ML becomes a DNSO/GA sublist so new people may 
contribute and be educated serve as a vehicle for the real Individual 
Users, Domain Name Holders, and TM owners constituencies. And that many 
other sub-lists be careated in as many languages as needed.

Jefsey

I want to associate to this all those who shared in france@large including 
Michel Baujard and Eric Jonvel - now a "opposing" candidate to the BoD - 
Luc Mangin and many others. I also want to thank all the AFNIC team for 
being "cricket". 

- --
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, 07 Aug 2001 16:11:45 +0200
From: Annie Renard <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [icann-fra] a france@large e-democratic achievement 

	Jefsey,

Please, don't speak on behalf of the AFNIC management.
You have neither the ability nor the authorization.

- ---
        Annie Renard    [[email-masked]]
        AFNIC - Immeuble International
	2 rue Stephenson - Montigny-le-Bretonneux 
        78181, Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines CEDEX, France 
	http://www.nic.fr/
	http://www.gouvernance-internet.com.fr
	Personal Email: [email-masked]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

	 As Chair of france@large I whish to share this with you.
	 
	 Last year for the @large elections learning from Germany which had been 
	 very active,  I proposed the French candidates (including the ICANN 
	 nominees) to meet together face to face, inviting the AFNIC. Then we ran a 
	 press conference, published several joint press releases and we started a 
	 common French language mailing list (we are poor at foreign languages :-) ).
	 
	 After the election this lead france@large to be incorporated as a kernel 
	 association to support the local and French speaking @large community.
	 
	 Our first action was to guest Andy Mueller Maghun at the DNSO and at the 
	 AFNIC in Versailles, meet with the DNSO/BC in Paris and to have a general 
	 meeting with him at the Parliament. We attended the MDR meeting with Michel 
	 Baujard, produced the response to the Staff on @large issues ( 
	 http://icann-fra.org ). We liaised with several possible @large projects. 
	 We are commonly interviewed on ICANN matters by the press.
	 
	 The DNSO election to the BoD was an occasion for us to make people aware of 
	 the DNSO and of what it may mean to the cultural exception and for the 
	 defense of French, European and other cultural values. This extended mainly 
	 to French speaking countries (again our poor foreign languages!) with 
	 results in Canada, Africa, Germany, UK, USA, etc. I cannot give figures yet 
	 as we have reports that Secretariat has not taken yet into account all the 
	 registrations they received in the time widow they had specified.
	 
	 We were not alone in that effort as several associations, ML, individuals 
	 shared into this endeavor. Interest was good enough since France has now 
	 proportionally as much DNSO voting Members as the USA. I am happy seeing 
	 that 2 candidates (we support both obviously) are French and that our 
	 france-fra mailing list includes the 3 French nominees. As the AFNIC 
	 Management is also on this  list, you see it is a real non-partisan concept 
	 which develops, supported by diversified and even opposing people and 
	 interests.
	 
	 We intend now to support one or several @large candidates to the AFNIC BoD, 
	 a better Web Site and to open relations with Consumer Protection and Family 
	 associations, Local Governments and governmental Internet oriented offices.
	 
	 Now, I made two dreams:
	 
	 1. that what we started in Germany and in France be carried for every 
	 country and culture. Many problems would fade away should the ICANN be 
	 first an infrastructure oriented association of the National Internet 
	 Centers and of Local Internet Communities.
	 
	 2. that our icann-fra ML becomes a DNSO/GA sublist so new people may 
	 contribute and be educated serve as a vehicle for the real Individual 
	 Users, Domain Name Holders, and TM owners constituencies. And that many 
	 other sub-lists be careated in as many languages as needed.
	 
	 Jefsey
	 
	 I want to associate to this all those who shared in france@large including 
	 Michel Baujard and Eric Jonvel - now a "opposing" candidate to the BoD - 
	 Luc Mangin and many others. I also want to thank all the AFNIC team for 
	 being "cricket". 

	 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
	 Small business owners...
	 Tell us what you think!
	 http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/.DlolB/TM
	 ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
	 
	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
	 [email-masked]

	 
	 L'utilisation de Yahoo! Groups est soumise aux http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
	 
- --
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, 7 Aug 2001 07:12:15 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 07:59:46PM -0400, James Love wrote:
> Kent, your comment was pretty unfair, IMO.

Thanks for sharing that with me.

> 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?

Sorry, it is purely nonsense to claim that ICANN is setting this agenda. 
Essentially everything significant about ICANN's agenda was set before
ICANN was established, and ICANN has been held to that agenda fairly
tightly.

> When you make policy decisions, then
> people care who has the power, and how they are selected.

Yes, and 2 + 2 = 4.  I have always been impressed by your ability to 
make tautologies look like they are meaningful statements.  

Unfortunately, whenever we get down to precisely what "power" is 
involved, or who "the people" are, or the real significance of the 
"policy decisions", you never seem to have much to offer.

When we do look in detail at what "the power" is, we find that it is in
fact incredibly constrained by external forces.  When we look at the
"policy issues" we find things important to a vanishingly small fraction
of the human race.  When we look in detail at "the people" who are
heavily involved we find almost entirely TM interests, domain
speculators, registry/registrar interests, people fascinated by the idea
of internet governance in general, and an oddball assortment of people
who have various personal agendas -- lunatics like me, and paid
political operators like you.  Despite the best efforts of many
people, there has never been any serious evidence of a larger body of 
interest.  Domain name policy is, IN FACT, an extremely obscure and 
highly technical topic that puts most people to sleep instantly.

> On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, 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...
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> --------------------------
> James Love, Consumer Project on Technology, http://www.cptech.org
> [email-masked], v. 1.202.387.8030, f 1.202.234.5176

- -- 
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: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 16:06:42 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar problem reports

On 14:43 07/08/01, Gomes, Chuck said:
>Correction: as has been previously pointed out, the VeriSign Registry is not
>locking domains as suggested below.
>Chuck Gomes

Would you mean .com has been redelegated?
Or may be have we a different understanding of locking?

IMHO DNs should be life long, payments being on a yearly usage. You do not 
lose your name if you do not pay your taxes.

Jefsey

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 2:47 AM
>To: Roeland Meyer; [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar problem reports
>
>
>The complaints I meant was concerning registrars not following the
>agreement.  specifically as it relates to registrar transfers.
>
>I have more than 100 complaints filed so far against Verisign, register.com
>and Names4 ever.  Even the verisign Registry is getting into the act and is
>locking domains.
>
>Dan Halloran does nothing and does not answer questions about what actions
>have been taken.
>
>Russ Smith
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 2:41 AM
>To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: [ga] Registrar problem reports
>
>
>They do handle individual complaints. It is just that they out-source it to
>WIPO. It's called UDRP.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 10:35 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: [ga] Registrar problem reports
> >
> >
> >  http://www.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi
> >
> > It says:
> >
> > "ICANN does not resolve individual customer complaints. ICANN is a
> > technical-coordination body. Its primary objective is to
> > coordinate the
> > Internet's system of assigned names and numbers to promote stable
> > operation."
> >
> > Why doesn't ICANN resolve individual complaints?  If they
> > don't then who
> > does?  Don't they manage the registrar contracts?  If so,
> > then why don't
> > they handle individual complaints?
> >
> > Russ Smith
> > http://TheNic.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
> >
>
>--
>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, 7 Aug 2001 10:41:20 -0400
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Documentation request

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C11F2D.7F35B4A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Messagethis would be the question i would pose as well

ken stubbs
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Peter de Blanc=20
  To: 'Philip Sheppard' ; [email-masked] ; [email-masked]=20
  Cc: [email-masked] ; [email-masked] ; [email-masked] ; =
[email-masked] ; [email-masked] ; [email-masked] ; =
[email-masked] ; [email-masked] ; [email-masked] ; =
[email-masked] ; [email-masked] ; [email-masked] ; =
[email-masked] ; [email-masked] ; [email-masked] ; =
[email-masked] ; [email-masked] ; [email-masked] ; =
[email-masked]=20
  Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 9:19 AM
  Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

  Greetings:

  Please refer to Article 3, and section 3 (d) of the ICANN bylaws at
  http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI

  The (proposed) new constituency must self-organize, probably produce a =
document containing at least a statement of purpose, or mission =
statement, and some basic bylaws defining membership.

  Once the (proposed) new constituency has self-organized, it may =
petition the Board for recognition.

  My question is, has such self-organization, and production of =
documents taken place?

  Peter de Blanc

  (Please note that I support the idea of some kind of individual domain =
name holder's constituency)
    -----Original Message-----
    From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of =
Philip Sheppard
    Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 4:21 AM
    To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
    Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; =
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; =
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; =
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; =
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; =
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; =
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
    Subject: [ga] Re: Documentation request

    Danny,=20
    thank you for your reply to my request for a document summarising =
the rationale and level of support for an individual's constituency. I =
can understand your temptation in continuing to copy in the entire NC =
but would urge you to stop unless those individuals actively ask to be =
kept directly informed. A copy to nc-review would seem more appropriate.

    You cited general references to the CONCEPT in the report of WG =
review with which I am familiar. You also cite a proposal on the CONCEPT =
made by Karl Auerbach. Did this ever get to a vote? You also cite =
various votes to questions of CONCEPT in each case with votes cast =
numbering from around 20 to 90 persons.

    What would be useful is to know if there has been a SUBSTANTIVE =
proposal addressing the key issue of representation, and if so what =
level of support that proposal received.

    Philip

- ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C11F2D.7F35B4A0
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><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4616.200" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>this would be the question i would pose as=20
well</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>ken stubbs</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
  <DIV=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
  <A title=[email-masked] href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">Peter =
de Blanc</A>=20
  </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">'Philip Sheppard'</A> ; <A=20
  title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> ; <A=20
  title=[email-masked] href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> ; <A =
title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> ; <A=20
  title=[email-masked]=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]=
</A> ;=20
  <A title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> ; <A=20
  title=[email-masked]=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> =
; <A=20
  title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> ; <A=20
  title=[email-masked] =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> ;=20
  <A title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> ; <A=20
  title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> ; <A=20
  title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> ; <A=20
  title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> ; <A=20
  title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> ; <A=20
  title=[email-masked] href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> ; <A=20
  title=[email-masked]=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</=
A> ; <A=20
  title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> ; <A =

  title=[email-masked]=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> =
; <A=20
  title=[email-masked] href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> =
; <A=20
  title=[email-masked] =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> ; <A=20
  title=[email-masked]=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">Elisabeth.Porteneuve@ce=
tp.ipsl.fr</A>=20
  </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, August 07, 2001 =
9:19=20
  AM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [ga] Re: =
Documentation=20
  request</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
  size=3D2>Greetings:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
  size=3D2>Please refer to Article 3, and section 3 (d) of the ICANN =
bylaws=20
  at</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI">http://www.icann.org/=
general/bylaws.htm#VI</A></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>The=20
  (proposed) new constituency must self-organize, probably produce a =
document=20
  containing at least a statement of purpose, or mission statement, and =
some=20
  basic bylaws defining membership.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Once=20
  the (proposed) new constituency has self-organized, it may petition =
the Board=20
  for recognition.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>My=20
  question is, has such self-organization, and production of documents =
taken=20
  place?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
  size=3D2>Peter de Blanc</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D192151513-07082001><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
  size=3D2>(Please note that I support the idea of some kind of =
individual domain=20
  name holder's constituency)</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
    <DIV></DIV>
    <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr =
align=3Dleft><FONT=20
    face=3DTahoma size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> <A =

    href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>=20
    [mailto:[email-masked]] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Philip=20
    Sheppard<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, August 07, 2001 4:21 =
AM<BR><B>To:</B> <A=20
    href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>; <A=20
    href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A><BR><B>Cc:</B> <A=20
    href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>; <A=20
    href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>; <A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]=
</A>;=20
    <A href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>; <A =

    =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>; =
<A=20
    href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>; <A=20
    href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>; <A=20
    href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>; <A=20
    href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>; <A=20
    href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>; <A=20
    href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>; <A=20
    href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>; <A=20
    href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>; <A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</=
A>;=20
    <A =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>; <A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>; =
<A=20
    href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>; <A=20
    href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>; <A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">Elisabeth.Porteneuve@ce=
tp.ipsl.fr</A>;=20
    <A =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A><BR><B>Subject:</B=
>=20
    [ga] Re: Documentation request<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Danny, </FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=3D2>thank you for&nbsp;your reply&nbsp;to my request =
for a=20
    document summarising the rationale and level of support for an =
individual's=20
    constituency. I can understand your temptation in continuing to copy =
in the=20
    entire NC but would urge you to stop unless those individuals =
actively ask=20
    to be kept directly informed. A copy to nc-review would seem more=20
    appropriate.</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=3D2>You cited general references to the&nbsp;CONCEPT =
in the=20
    report of WG review with which&nbsp;I am familiar. </FONT><FONT =
size=3D2>You=20
    also cite a proposal on the CONCEPT made by Karl Auerbach. Did=20
    this&nbsp;ever get&nbsp;to a vote? You also cite various votes to =
questions=20
    of CONCEPT in each case&nbsp;with votes cast numbering =
from&nbsp;around 20=20
    to 90 persons.</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=3D2>What would be useful is to know if there has =
been a=20
    SUBSTANTIVE proposal addressing the key issue of representation, and =
if so=20
    what level of support that proposal received.</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT =
size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C11F2D.7F35B4A0--

- --
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, 7 Aug 2001 17:30:32 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Call for endorsements to candidates for ICANN Board

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

Since 17 July 2001 the DNSO General Assembly is in the process of selection
of ICANN Board Director.

Nominations and acceptances of candidates has been closed today, 07 August.
Five nominees accepted their nomination for the ICANN Board position,
listed below in alphabetical order:

        * Amadeu Abril i Abril (Europe)
        * Eric Jonvel (Europe)
        * Paul Kane (Europe)
        * Joanna Lane (Europe)
        * Jean-François C. (Jefsey) Morfin (Europe)

Endorsements of candidates starts today, 07 August, and will last
for 3 weeks, ending 28 August 2001, 16:00 UTC (18:00 Paris).

Endorsements should be emailed to the DNSO Secretariat at the 
following email address: [email-masked] and use 
the provided Template for endorsement:

        3a. Full name of the endorser:
        3b. E-mail address of the endorser:
        3c. Full name of the accepted nominee
            you wish to endorse:
            (specific statements of endorsements
            may also be submitted and are encouraged)

In order to be considered for the ICANN Board selection
a nominee must have the support of, at least, 10 members
of the General Assembly of the DNSO.

The DNSO Names Council will select the ICANN Board Director
between 29 August and 15 September.

The following URLs are related to the ICANN Board Director election
by the DNSO in 2001:
   A. Main document: Description of the election process in 2001
      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-election.html
   B. Procedure for nominations, acceptances and endorsements by the GA,
      and calendar for 2001:
      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-nomination-proc.html
   C. A list of nominations, acceptances and their endorsements ,
      updated daily at:
      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-nominees.html 
   D. The NC voting procedure:
      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-voting-proc.html

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: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 17:35:26 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

Hello Kent,

Kent Crispin wrote on 07.08.01, 07:12:15:
>> 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?
>
> Sorry, it is purely nonsense to claim that ICANN is setting this agenda.
> Essentially everything significant about ICANN's agenda was set before
> ICANN was established, and ICANN has been held to that agenda fairly
> tightly.

I agree that most of the controversial questions on the 
agenda were there before ICANN. However, the supratechnical 
questions are on the table, and some of them will continue to 
come up. 

> When we do look in detail at what "the power" is, we find that it is in
> fact incredibly constrained by external forces. 

And when we look in detail at the external forces, we find that 
they in turn are constrained by other external forces. Of course
it would be plainly naive to assume that ICANN has unrestrained
power over the Internet or even the DNS. The amount of ICANN's 
power and the number of ICANN's supporters ultimately shows in 
disputes.

> When we look at the "policy issues" we find things important to a 
> vanishingly small fraction of the human race.
> When we look in detail at "the people" who are
> heavily involved we find almost entirely TM interests, domain
> speculators, registry/registrar interests, people fascinated by the idea
> of internet governance in general, and an oddball assortment of people
> who have various personal agendas -- lunatics like me, and paid
> political operators like you.  Despite the best efforts of many
> people, there has never been any serious evidence of a larger body of
> interest.  Domain name policy is, IN FACT, an extremely obscure and
> highly technical topic that puts most people to sleep instantly.

:) I'm wondering which pigeon-hole I fit into.
But I am not so sure about the number of people interested,
since awareness usually comes before interest. ICANN has
been on the main national news program in Germany twice, 
if I recall correctly. And I am not very surprised
about the people heavily involved; take any other topic
which requires some prior knowledge, e.g. public health 
service. We'd find doctors and patients interests, 
insurance companies, manufacturers, lunatics etc. And
I am sure that I could be put to sleep instantly with
a presentation on intricate details of social welfare
legislation. Which doesn't mean that the overall question
is not important.

Best regards,
/// Alexander
- --
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, 7 Aug 2001 09:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consumer/Registrant Protection Consitituency

On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 07:59:46PM -0400, James Love wrote:
> > Kent, your comment was pretty unfair, IMO.
>
> Thanks for sharing that with me.
>
> > 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?
>
> Sorry, it is purely nonsense to claim that ICANN is setting this agenda.
> Essentially everything significant about ICANN's agenda was set before
> ICANN was established, and ICANN has been held to that agenda fairly
> tightly.

ICANN has chosen to address or ignore it's "agenda" at will. One of the
most important things that the interim board of ICANN was to have
accomplished was the seating of a properly-elected board, a job which
still remains unfinished.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

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

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

Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 19:06:12 +0200
From: "france@large" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [icann-fra] a france@large e-democratic achievement 

At 16:11 07/08/01, Annie Renard wrote:
>Jefsey,
>Please, don't speak on behalf of the AFNIC management.
>You have neither the ability nor the authorization.

This shows that our French model is quite achieved and is
both typically democratic and ... French!  :-)

Dear Annie,
as you may note I did not talk on behalf of the AFNIC, on the
contrary I explained that the model we build includes

<snip>

>         diversified and even opposing people and interests.

What your mail fully demonstrates, isn't, it?  Great!

The important and our common strength is we talk or e-mail
together, as well as with other people calling names both of
us. We do not ignore each others nor use lawyers.

<snip>

>  I also want to thank all the AFNIC team for being "cricket".

As I told you I have like everyone the right to talk of the AFNIC,
even in good terms :-)

As most I have my own positions and several have strong
oppositions concerning your policies - but as a list Moderator
I think our common sucess and an example for the ALSC is
we keeping talking.

As in this live example for the world  to share :-)

Have great vacations!
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: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 14:19:43 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Defective Sunrise Queue parsing by Afilias 

An analysis on the registrars list:  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00956.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, 07 Aug 2001 15:55:01 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Documentation request

on 8/7/01 9:19 AM, Peter de Blanc at [email-masked] wrote:

> My question is, has such self-organization, and production of documents
> taken place?
> 
> Peter de Blanc

Peter,

You may remember that a Constituency for Individual Domain Name Registrants
was discussed and debated at length by WG-Review and your positive support
is noted in the archives in response to the straw poll question, "Do you
support representation" for individuals in DNSO along the lines of a new
constituency".

As NC representative and Chair of WG-Review, Y J Park noted in the Final
Report, http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01434.html

<quote>

"The most visible and audible demand from Review WG apart from "Drop the
Constituencies" is to recognize "Individual Domain Name Holders/Owners" in
the Internet Policy-making process since its beginning. There have been
counterargument that individuals can be represented through At-Large which
will result in duplicated representation in the ICANN.

However, Karl Auerbach's comment on this issue has some valid points, too.

    "If the logic that is being used to block the individual domain
     name holders constituency were applied to the other constituencies they
     too would have to be dissolved because they are, under the rubric of
     that logic, represented via the at-large."

In addition to such requests, from its early stage WG members including Bret
Fausset, the current WG D Chair together with Theresa Swinehart, discussed
the formal procedure to set up new constituencies. Here is Bret Fausset's
message which emphasized on setting up due procedure for new constituencies
with formality. [Appendix 7]"

<end quote>

Both Appendix 7 and Appendix 5,
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01440.html, Appendix 5 being
a proposal for membership criteria, were not only submitted to NC Task Force
DNSO Review (the previous one), but were passed forward to the BoD as part
of the NC's DNSO Review Task Force Final Report.

Added to that, in YJ's report, she notes,

<quote>

"3. Specified DNSO Review-WGs are to be Formed.
        - DNSO without Constituency Proposal
        - DNSO with Established Procedure to Create New Constituencies
        - DNSO Budget Proposal"

It has to be said that had WG-Review not been summarily ceased by the NC,
then further work could have been accomplished by interested persons
regarding the creation of a constituency for individuals.

We are grateful for the NC Review Task Force's attention to this important
issue. 

Would you like clean copies of the documents cited above, and if so, should
these be forwarded to the list, your website forum, or where?

Regards,
Joanna  

- --
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 #650
************************