Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #663
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, August 11 2001          Volume 01 : Number 663

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

Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 12:41:28 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Response by Board Candidate to Whois  question - Registrants Charter (1)

on 8/9/01 11:23 PM, [email-masked] at [email-masked] wrote:
 
> 13.  What is your position regarding the sale of Bulk WHOIS data?

I have written extensively on the Whois topic generally on the ga-sys
sublist and am reposting three documents in quick succession in response to
this one question. This is the first.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/msg00007.html

- ----------
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:17:09 -0400
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga-sys] Registrants Charter - FREEDOMS - Part 1

This document draws attention to one significant discrepancy between
ICANN-adopted policy, and the European Commission-adopted policy with regard
to Registrar-Registrant Agreements.

Freedoms granted December 2000 require that all EU citizens of the 15 member
nations who chose to register Second Level Domain Names as individuals shall
have the right to opt out of the WHOIS database altogether.

Under Chapter II, Article 8, the name and postal address of the SLD holder
is regarded by the European Community as personal data that Registries -
Registrars are not at liberty to publish in the public domain as part of
their operations.

___________________________________________________________________________

Having regard to The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Mr
Romano Prodi, President of the Commission states:-

'In the eyes of the European Commission, by proclaiming the Charter of
Fundamental Rights, the European Union institutions have committed
themselves to respecting the Charter in everything they do and in every
policy they promote (...). The citizens of Europe can rely on the Commission
to ensure that the Charter will be respected (...)'.

(Nice, 7 December 2000)
http://www.europarl.eu.int/charter/default_en.htm

CHAPTER II - FREEDOMS

Article 6 - Right to liberty and security
Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.

Article 7 - Respect for private and family life
Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life,
home and communications.

Article 8 - Protection of personal data
1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him
or her.

2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and *on the
basis of the consent of the person concerned or some legitimate basis laid
down by law* (emphasis added). Everyone has the right of access to data
which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it
rectified.

3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independant
authority.

Article 38 - Consumer protection
Union policies shall ensure a high level of consumer protection.

_________________________________________________________________

Having regard to the European Parliament resolution on the Commission
communication to the Council and the European Parliament on 'THE
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE INTERNET'

A.  whereas balanced international representation must be achieved within
ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), so that due
account may be taken of all five geographical areas covered by the
organisation,

H.  whereas the Union can give a new impetus to Internet management; whereas
the Commission has a role to play in this connection, both with regard to
the development of self-regulation, the possible framing of European
legislation (where appropriate) and with a view to future international
agreements,

I.  whereas the Commission plays a major role in the coordination of
Internet management and in negotiations with the United States in this area,

J.  whereas the consultations between the Commission, the private sector and
civil society regarding Internet management are also of major importance and
should therefore be encouraged,

K.  whereas the provision of access to and the protection of data published
on the Internet should be regulated,

L.  whereas the expansion of the Internet and the liberalisation of the
telecommunications industry are interrelated,

<snip>

14.  Draws attention to the fact that, with a view to ensuring the
development of the Internet within the Union, the Commission should develop,
in conjunction with ICANN, effective codes of conduct (supported by
legislation as appropriate), to cover the allocation and protection of
domain names, action to combat fraud and cybersquatting, and *access to
personal data and the security and protection thereof* (emphasis added);
considers it necessary to define not only the arrangements for settling
disputes between the US and the EU, but also a universal method which will
not be subject to differing national regulations or to merely bilateral
treaties;

_______________________________________________________________________

Part 2 will be posted in due course.

- --
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: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 12:42:12 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Board candidate response to Whois question - Registrants Charter (2)

on 8/9/01 11:23 PM, [email-masked] at [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 13.  What is your position regarding the sale of Bulk WHOIS data?

This record may also be useful documentation with respect to an impact
statement that will be required to establish the current need for an
Individual Registrants Constituency.

- ----------
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 18:33:43 -0400
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga-sys] Registrants Charter - FREEDOMS - Part 2

ADVERSE EFFECTS ON INDIVIDUAL DOMAIN NAME REGISTRANTS OF:-

1. CURRENT REGISTRAR'S ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT
2. TUCOWS PROPOSAL FOR REGISTRANT PRIVACY PROTECTION
3. UNSPONSORED TLD AGREEMENTS AND NEW VERISIGN AGREEMENT
_________________________________________________________________

RELEVANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT TO THE GA

Danny Younger, Chair of the General Assembly of the DNSO (Domain Name
Supporting Organization) has noted,

"As the General Assembly is the only ICANN body that can currently represent
(to some degree) the interests of individuals, we have an obligation to make
sure that as an impacted party, individuals are well represented in ongoing
policy deliberations."

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg1077.html

____________________________________________________________________________

OUTREACH

This document is a SUMMARY of debate on the GA mailing list GA-Sys.

Comments received from members noted various difficulties and adverse
effects arising from lack of protection of personal data when individuals,
families and community organizations register Domain names. (see note 1).

Suggestions were offered for ways in which personal data may be protected
while complying with legal terms of Registrant agreements, (whichever of the
above may apply).(see note 2).

However, none of the options suggested would normally be available without a
cost implication for the Registrant, (see note 3.) neither without
compromising the technical stability of the Internet for the System
Administrator, (see note 4.)

While it was generally agreed that many difficulties relating to privacy
issues arise from ignorance of new Registrants as to possible alternatives
to disclosing personal data (see note 5), these are mainly available in the
US and no suggestions were received that provide both a satisfactory
solution on a global scale (see note 6) and comply with EU Privacy laws as
outlined in Part 1 of this document.

NOTE 1.
When the Registrant uses personal data as contact information, in effect,
he/she is:-

(i) Appointing him/herself as legal agent regarding service of process and
can only acquire a domain name on the basis of agreeing to UDRP. UDRP is a
legally binding process for the Registrant that exists to protect the rights
of trademark holders, but currently, there is no equivalent process to
protect the free speech and other rights of individuals, families and
community organizations in the registration and fair use of domain names on
the internet.
 
(ii) Publishing their personal data in a public directory, the WHOIS
database. Registries-Registrars are prevented from offering an unlisted,
personal domain name service, as could reasonably be expected of the
telecommunications industry with respect to unlisted, personal phone
numbers.

(iii) Relinquishing personal privacy and personal rights and protections to
obtain a domain name and being expected to do so in a manner that allows
millions of people to gain immediate access to potentially sensitive data.

(iv) The subject of a growing number of third party sales leads from the
sale of personal data to third party profiteers. Registrants are agreeing to
provide more than a technical contact for a DN without knowing how that data
may be used. Information is being collected by Registries-Registrars for
purposes other than billing, without information being provided to allow the
Registrant to make an informed decision.

NOTE 2.

1). "The registrar accreditation agreement does not say that you have to
supply "personal data" -- all you need to supply is the contact information
for a legal entity that is willing to assume responsibility for receiving
legal notice and passing it on to you.  This is actually an opportunity for
some enterprising registrar to add this kind of escrow of legal
responsibility as a value added service."

Kent Crispin: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/msg00016.html

NOTE 3.
The individual is adversely affected by the cost of purchasing additional
services to protect privacy through the use of a PO Box, or by appointing a
third party agent for service of process.

Available options in the US include PO Boxes, which are widely available in
the US at a cost of about $45.00 per annum for a small box, but these would
not be available in all territories.

"Equally, MBE is a company called "Mail Boxes Etc", a private US competitor
to a Post Office branch office. In fact, many of them are PO branch offices,
by license. They are a general mail service with add-ons like; pre-sorting
and filtering, mail forwarding service, UPS and FedEx delivery point (USPS
will not accept FedEx and UPS parcels at a PO box, MBE will), Fax send/rcv,
etc. More importantly, an MBE address reads like a normal business address.
The sender does not know that they are sending to a PO box."

Roeland Meyer: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/msg00033.html

Also, some Registrars may offer for profit escrow services. Registrars
should clarify what these may be for the benefit of the GA at this time.

NOTE 4.
For the system administrator, indirect contact information reduces
troubleshooting ability in the event of a network emergency such as denial
of service attack. 

"The fundamental problem is that there is no way to predict which SysAdmin,
in which domain, will need that data. In the case of DDoS (denial of
service) attacks, that information should really be fetched by automated
scripts. uuid/passwd protocols would make those scripts unusable. We are
talking about 10-20 cascaded lookups, with a number of different whois
servers, in under a second here."

Roeland Meyer: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/msg00033.html

NOTE 5.

"Having the options and KNOWING about the options are two very different
things. My suggestion AGAIN is that Registrars or a third party be charged
with making sure every Registrant of a Domain Name knows their rights and
options regarding a domain name."

Chris McElroy: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/msg00056.html

NOTE 6>

"We are talking about the *default* (which is likely to be used by the vast
majority). E.g. I note that voicemail systems are used *far* less frequently
in Germany (maybe also in the rest of Europe) than in the US, and that
relatively few private persons have a PO box."

Alexander Svensson:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/msg00035.html

__________________________________________________________________________

I will next compile input for WHOIS - conditions of use as PART 3.
__________________________________________________________________________

- --
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: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 12:42:47 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Response by Board Candidate to Whois question - Territorial approach

on 8/9/01 11:23 PM, [email-masked] at [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 13.  What is your position regarding the sale of Bulk WHOIS data?

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/msg00111.html

- ----------
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 04:30:55 -0400
To: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Cc: ga-sys <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga-sys] Territorial approach to privacy issues

Joanna Lane wrote:-
>> Yes, I can generalize about an entire country when its based on the laws of
>> that country.

Patrick,
There is no disagreement or personal issue here. Let me clarify the meaning
and purpose of my comments, first with respect to the EU, then other
nations. 

The EU Privacy law was made by a democratically elected government, that
represents the voice of the majority of people in its 15 nations. Therefore,
I think it's a fair statement to make that a consensus position on the
disclosure of personal data is already well known with respect to all
affected persons in one of ICANN's five territories, namely Europe, by
virtue of existing laws of that territory (assuming that ICANN's virtual
Europe corresponds to the physical boundaries of the European Union).

If you can agree with both the above paragraph and with the concept that a
minority of EU citizens would have opposed the EU law, then it follows that
whatever opinions may be expressed by a token number of EU citizens
participating in this forum, these may differ from the actual law in force
in the territory that affects them and to which they are subject.

Equally, in the WHOIS survey currently underway, the result from EU
participants would not necessarily mirror the EU directive, even though this
law determines how the majority of people want their personal data to be
treated. Therefore, we risk EU citizens voting in the public WHOIS survey,
possibly leading us to a result that conveys a contrary view to the one we
have already agreed is the established consensus position for this
particular group of stakeholders.

This is one concern I have about the value of the WHOIS survey as it is set
out. The absence of any record of geographical diversity concerning public
participation is another, that would have allowed data to be assessed
relative to a particular ICANN territory and its national laws.

If we were set aside the WHOIS survey for a moment, and we look at the
territorial approach to outreach, with the intention to incorporate existing
data, this effort requires the DNSO to undertake research only into certain
nations, and having established which other nations have adopted privacy
laws/ regulations similar to those of the EU, and which have not, I would
say that would be a very useful indication of millions of present and future
prospective stakeholders voices that have spoken through their legal systems
and governments with respect to Privacy, as opposed to a few with vested
interests in the outcome that I guess will bother with this survey. Frankly,
its depressing, when there are alternitives to hand.

To disregard the ICANN territories altogether, and to treat all members of
the GA equally, regardless of nationality, allowing a free vote on Privacy
issues in relation to WHOIS data, is the other approach, as embarked upon by
the NC for the current public input through the Survey.

The fundamental problem is that whatever results ensue from this survey, the
DNSO will then be forced to use it as a basis for a comprehensive policy
recommendation, claiming it to be consensus based, citing a minority opinion
that may not be corroborated by other available data. Then where will the
WHOIS Committee be? At the wrong end of more criticism than you can imagine.

The public outreach will have amounted to a relatively minuscule number of
people participating in a modestly publicized survey, compared to the voice
of nations that are affected. While all these millions upon millions of
public voices have already been heard very clearly on many aspects of this
issue, the DNSO would now ignore them, and instead, favor its own survey
results? It's not right.

This particular exercise in public outreach is unique, in that this time,
there is other data readily available that should be taken into account and
it doesn't pass the reasonable person test to ignore it. Consequently, if I
was sitting on the ICANN Board, I would want the territorial approach to the
social aspects of the privacy issue, tasking the NC to fill in the gaps for
data where possible, rather than a tiny sampling of the DNSO, hoping to
reach a representative cross section who are qualified to dictate social
policy for the rest of the world.

Clearly with the territorial approach to social policy making, there would
be no need for the DNSO, WHOIS committee or any working group of the GA, to
go to the time, trouble and expense of entertaining any further outreach or
provide any further documentation with respect to claims of consensus
regarding the EU, but simply to put their efforts into aquiring the details
of applicable laws (and lack thereof) of all other nations worldwide. This
is where the DNSO effort should be going IMO and only when that job is done
can the NC look at the possibility of making policy recommendations on a
global scale with respect to Privacy for impacted individuals.

Next....the US position...

Patrick Greenwell wrote:-
> Your comments did not appear to be related to the laws of the United
> States but rather were related to the attitudes of US citizens towards
> "intrusion into their private lives."

First, a disclaimer. I am not and do not profess to be an expert on the Laws
of the United States, hence you are correct in so far as my comments relate
more to "attitude" than law, although I prefer the term "cultural views."

When referring to the possible consensus opinions of whole nations of
people, it is useful to talk in generalizations, although as it happens, I
was referring to comments by one particular member, whose consumer
relations/ cultural views on privacy issues is not, in my experience,
untypical of the people of the North American Region. He was advocating a
particularly strong version of that position, but I appreciate those may not
be your own views, or Eric Dierker's, who also seems to have taken my
comment in a way it was not meant to come across. My apologies.

It is certainly not my intention to create ill-will by identifying cultural
differences, but please be asssured that there can be no "us" and "them"
that you describe for me, since my immediate family comprises multiple
nationalities including US, British, Australian and Spanish. Different
cultural viewpoints is something I encounter on a daily basis and I would
like to make a generalized comment about that, somewhat oversimplified.

When a US child is taken to the doctor's office, not only do they expect to
see a medical insurance card, they also expect a Social Security number
(SSN), for the child and both parents. This is the way of North America and
from a very young age, US children grow up with this concept as a normal
state of affairs, conditioned to the point that it is not even a
questionable issue. I talk to US friends and family about this and receive
puzzled looks. Not so in many other parts of the world, where it is an
abhorrent idea to be forced to provide an unique and personal identifying
number on a daily basis over a lifetime to all manner of people who ask.

As it is, without an SS number, a US person (here in NY anyway) could not
obtain a driving license, buy a car, open a bank account, obtain a credit
card, obtain medical insurance or even put a roof over their head. In the
UK, all of the above can be executed without any such requirement,  save for
doctor registration and tax authorities that require an NI number, but I
challenge you to find a UK citizen that can recall their number from memory,
it is so rarely used.

The requirement to constantly produce an identifying number is a totally
alien concept to the European (the UK anyway), whose citizens cannot imagine
what the US can possibly be doing with all this collated information about a
person's life, and whose own life carries on perfectly normally without any
such intrusion. Added to which there are few add-ons available to protect
privacy, such as PO Boxes for example, because the need for them is simply
not there at this time.

The exact reverse is true for the US, where the alien concept is that life
would be unbearably chaotic for a responsible member of society without an
SSN and local PO Box facility, where strong demand has made these add-on
services readily available to all. I know this is generalizing, and I am not
meaning to say that anybody here in particular holds these views, including
myself.

The point is that the EU is proactive in privacy protection - they make
privacy laws to protect their citizens, rather than leaving them to fend for
themselves, whereas the US system is reactive in its privacy protection -
they offer services to add on layers of protection - PO Boxes etc.

Some may view this as coddling by the EU. It is not. It is a cultural
difference. There are aspects of society in the US that the UK would
consider coddling. They would be equally wrong.

Neither of the Privacy Protection systems advocated by the respective
governments of the US and the EU strikes me as conducive to achieving a
consensus position in the microcosm that is the DNSO, whether supplemented
by a public survey or not. This is something that takes greater skills of
diplomacy then certainly I can muster. It is the job of governments, not a
private US corporation comprised of special interest groups that do not even
give a vote to a single representative of those that are most profoundly
affected by this issue, the Individual.

Yes, there are technical stability issues to resolve in this debate also,
but there is more at stake here than the internet. This is a social policy
that touches people where they are most sensitive and the impact will be
deeply felt.

Regards,

Joanna

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-sys" 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: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 12:54:09 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Response by Board candidate to Whois question - Registrants Charter (1)

on 8/9/01 11:23 PM, [email-masked] at [email-masked] wrote:

> 13.  What is your position regarding the sale of Bulk WHOIS data?

I wrote fairly extensively on the Whois topic generally on the ga-sys
sub-list in May and am reposting three documents that set out my position.

Regards,
Joanna

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/msg00007.html
- ----------
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:17:09 -0400
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga-sys] Registrants Charter - FREEDOMS - Part 1

This document draws attention to one significant discrepancy between
ICANN-adopted policy, and the European Commission-adopted policy with regard
to Registrar-Registrant Agreements.

Freedoms granted December 2000 require that all EU citizens of the 15 member
nations who chose to register Second Level Domain Names as individuals shall
have the right to opt out of the WHOIS database altogether.

Under Chapter II, Article 8, the name and postal address of the SLD holder
is regarded by the European Community as personal data that Registries -
Registrars are not at liberty to publish in the public domain as part of
their operations.

___________________________________________________________________________

Having regard to The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Mr
Romano Prodi, President of the Commission states:-

'In the eyes of the European Commission, by proclaiming the Charter of
Fundamental Rights, the European Union institutions have committed
themselves to respecting the Charter in everything they do and in every
policy they promote (...). The citizens of Europe can rely on the Commission
to ensure that the Charter will be respected (...)'.

(Nice, 7 December 2000)
http://www.europarl.eu.int/charter/default_en.htm

CHAPTER II - FREEDOMS

Article 6 - Right to liberty and security
Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.

Article 7 - Respect for private and family life
Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life,
home and communications.

Article 8 - Protection of personal data
1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him
or her.

2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and *on the
basis of the consent of the person concerned or some legitimate basis laid
down by law* (emphasis added). Everyone has the right of access to data
which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it
rectified.

3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independant
authority.

Article 38 - Consumer protection
Union policies shall ensure a high level of consumer protection.

_________________________________________________________________

Having regard to the European Parliament resolution on the Commission
communication to the Council and the European Parliament on 'THE
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE INTERNET'

A.  whereas balanced international representation must be achieved within
ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), so that due
account may be taken of all five geographical areas covered by the
organisation,

H.  whereas the Union can give a new impetus to Internet management; whereas
the Commission has a role to play in this connection, both with regard to
the development of self-regulation, the possible framing of European
legislation (where appropriate) and with a view to future international
agreements,

I.  whereas the Commission plays a major role in the coordination of
Internet management and in negotiations with the United States in this area,

J.  whereas the consultations between the Commission, the private sector and
civil society regarding Internet management are also of major importance and
should therefore be encouraged,

K.  whereas the provision of access to and the protection of data published
on the Internet should be regulated,

L.  whereas the expansion of the Internet and the liberalisation of the
telecommunications industry are interrelated,

<snip>

14.  Draws attention to the fact that, with a view to ensuring the
development of the Internet within the Union, the Commission should develop,
in conjunction with ICANN, effective codes of conduct (supported by
legislation as appropriate), to cover the allocation and protection of
domain names, action to combat fraud and cybersquatting, and *access to
personal data and the security and protection thereof* (emphasis added);
considers it necessary to define not only the arrangements for settling
disputes between the US and the EU, but also a universal method which will
not be subject to differing national regulations or to merely bilateral
treaties;

_______________________________________________________________________

- --
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: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 19:31:13 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: GA Chair election mechanism - Was: [ga] Review Task Force List ...

Dear Roberto,
let me review quickly your last three mails:

- - I fully agree with your points on the election of the Chair by the GA. 
You must understand it would transfer de facto the authority of the DNSO 
from  NC to GA if a new ballance is not found with the "Constituencies" 
becoming far more active on the GA, open and transparent.

- - as I quickly documented it in my response to Danny's questions, 
"consensus" has either a clear definition which is "no disagreement" or - 
and this is the way we use it -  it is the "community correct" of the me/we 
model. This is a consensus by the soft exclusion of the people who disagree.

- - let not spend time to set-up rules for the DNSO and let focus on the DNSO 
itself. Electing its  Chair, ALSC propositions, Registrants and Internet 
User being represented are changes complex to  accomodate. You may also 
remember that the WG-R identified the constituency system as the root of 
the DNSO problems.

Jefsey

On 12:53 11/08/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
>Joanna,
>
>>A resounding apology. The first part of this message was intended ...
>
>No need to apologize - it was a misunderstanding.
>
>If we are mostly in agreement, maybe it is time to define a common 
>position that I can present to the Task Force.
>
>The position shall include, IMHO:
>- the statement that the GA should elect its Chair;
>- provide the rationale for it (self-governance, for instance);
>- observe that the GA currently elects other officials (like 
>representatives to Task Forces, for instance) without any intervention of 
>the NC, and the whole thing works well;
>- provide evidence of the previous positions of the GA (and other bodies, 
>like WGs).
>
>Please be aware that the last point is less than trivial: as there may be 
>no time to vote, I should provide evidence that I do have mandate from the 
>GA to express this position. I would appreciate your contribution in 
>providing urls for the WG consensus calls and other messages you may think 
>are relevant (private mail are good enough if you don't want to "waste a 
>post").
>
>Best regards
>Roberto
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 19:30:38 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Second Advisory Concerning Equitable Allocation of SRS Resources

On 15:45 11/08/01, [email-masked] said:
>Louis Touton has advised the Council of a new announcement (rather 
>important):
>http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr10aug01.htm

If I understand right this means "as we cannot prevent stock piling on a 
medium scale, we organize it on a major one" ? The number of involved DN 
increasing every day accumulating the back log will only increase all the 
problems involved.

The solution is either to get a better system or to decrease the pressure, 
i.e. the market value of the cancelled  DNs. Question is : "is the internet 
a business exchange or a network system"

If it is a business exchange let transfer the DN management to the NASDAQ
if it is a network system let open 1000 TLDs to decrease the demand

In any case this shows that a serious servicing of the current DN system 
cannot be accomodated for $ 9 and calls for a total economical review of 
the ICANN system by real profesionnals.

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:53:51 -0700
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

Roberto,

Forgive me for saying so, but your call for a definition of "consensus" is
IMHO some kind of diversionary tactic.  Why, and to what end...?  In its last
published consensus-based document the WG-Review suggested the definition of
"consensus" as a 2/3 majority of vote participants.  Did you not read it? 
Must we have the same discussion all over again?  On the other hand, we have
the very interesting declaration of what "consensus" means in ICANN terms:

>From a July 8, 1999, ICANN correspondence to The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley,
Jr. Chairman of The House Committee on Commerce, from Esther Dyson on behalf
of ICANN:

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

"Obviously, to the extent any individual or group undertakes to articulate a
consensus of
the overall community, its work is useful only to the extent it accurately
reflects the consensus. ICANN is no exception to this rule. Unfortunately,
there is no litmus test that can objectively render a judgment as to whether
this standard has been met in any particular
situation. Perhaps the best test is whether the community at large is
comfortable with the
process and the results, and the best gauge of that is probably the level of
continuing participation in the process, and voluntary compliance with the
policies produced by that process. "This is, necessarily, a more ambiguous
standard than counting votes or some other
objectively measurable criteria, and it inevitably means less efficient, more
messy, less linear
movement, as the perceived community consensus shifts and adapts to change, or
as perceptions
of that consensus themselves are refined or change. Such a process is easily
subject to criticism and attack by those not satisfied with the process or the
results; after all,
in the absence of some objective determination, it is impossible to
definitively refute claims that the consensus has been misread, and loud noise
can sometimes be mistaken for broad support for any proposition advanced.

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

- --
So what's the deal with this call for "consensus" definition Roberto?  How
about a domain name definition instead?  It would go a lot further in cleaning
up the mess created by the ambiguous wordslingers who crafted the entire
notion of web-policy by fiat ably branded with the obscure term: "consensus". 
This whole topic stinks! 

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: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 13:05:24 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

I might point out that such a soft definition of consensus carries very
little weight in congress.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:54 PM
> To: ga
> Subject: [ga] Consensus... Definition?
> 
> 
> Roberto,
> 
> Forgive me for saying so, but your call for a definition of 
> "consensus" is
> IMHO some kind of diversionary tactic.  Why, and to what 
> end...?  In its last
> published consensus-based document the WG-Review suggested 
> the definition of
> "consensus" as a 2/3 majority of vote participants.  Did you 
> not read it? 
> Must we have the same discussion all over again?  On the 
> other hand, we have
> the very interesting declaration of what "consensus" means in 
> ICANN terms:
> 
> >From a July 8, 1999, ICANN correspondence to The Honorable 
> Thomas J. Bliley,
> Jr. Chairman of The House Committee on Commerce, from Esther 
> Dyson on behalf
> of ICANN:
> 
> "Because there were at the time of ICANN's formation and 
> remain today critics
> of either its bylaws or particular actions taken since its 
> creation, it is
> useful to define what we mean when
> we use the word "consensus." It obviously does not mean 
> "unanimous," nor is it
> intended to
> reflect some precise counting of heads pro or con on a 
> particular subject,
> since in this
> environment that is simply not possible. What it does mean is 
> that, on any
> particular issue,
> proposed policies are generated from public input and 
> published to the world
> at large, comments
> are received and publicly discussed, and an attempt is made, 
> from the entirety
> of that process, to articulate the consensus position as best 
> it can be
> perceived.
> 
> "Obviously, to the extent any individual or group undertakes 
> to articulate a
> consensus of
> the overall community, its work is useful only to the extent 
> it accurately
> reflects the consensus. ICANN is no exception to this rule. 
> Unfortunately,
> there is no litmus test that can objectively render a 
> judgment as to whether
> this standard has been met in any particular
> situation. Perhaps the best test is whether the community at large is
> comfortable with the
> process and the results, and the best gauge of that is 
> probably the level of
> continuing participation in the process, and voluntary 
> compliance with the
> policies produced by that process. "This is, necessarily, a 
> more ambiguous
> standard than counting votes or some other
> objectively measurable criteria, and it inevitably means less 
> efficient, more
> messy, less linear
> movement, as the perceived community consensus shifts and 
> adapts to change, or
> as perceptions
> of that consensus themselves are refined or change. Such a 
> process is easily
> subject to criticism and attack by those not satisfied with 
> the process or the
> results; after all,
> in the absence of some objective determination, it is impossible to
> definitively refute claims that the consensus has been 
> misread, and loud noise
> can sometimes be mistaken for broad support for any 
> proposition advanced.
> 
> "Certainly there are those who do not accept that particular 
> ICANN policies or
> decisions to
> date accurately reflect the community consensus, and there 
> are some who are
> not comfortable
> with the process that has been employed to determine the 
> community consensus.
> No doubt
> reasonable people can differ on both policy and process, and 
> certainly there
> are many opinions
> about practically everything on which ICANN has acted. Still, 
> it appears that
> the process has
> actually worked remarkably well considering the difficulty of 
> the task, as
> measured by the fact that most of the global Internet 
> communities continue to
> participate in this consensus development process.'
> 
> --
> So what's the deal with this call for "consensus" definition 
> Roberto?  How
> about a domain name definition instead?  It would go a lot 
> further in cleaning
> up the mess created by the ambiguous wordslingers who crafted 
> the entire
> notion of web-policy by fiat ably branded with the obscure 
> term: "consensus". 
> This whole topic stinks! 
> 
> 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
> 
- --
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 #663
************************