Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #670
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, August 14 2001           Volume 01 : Number 670

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

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 23:08:32 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: [ga] Give till it hurts

==========================================================================
Credit Card Payments Now Accepted

Marina del Rey, California, USA (13 August 2001) Beginning immediately,
persons wishing to make contributions or certain other payments under US
$2500 to ICANN may do so by credit card (Maestro, Mastercard, and Visa).
This additional payment mechanism should simplify, and reduce bank
service fees for, payments made by ICANN constituents outside the United
States. To make a credit-card payment, please fill out and submit the
Credit Card Payment Form posted on the ICANN website.
<http://www.icann.org/financials/credit.htm>

======================================================================

I will have to get my card out.  I wonder what these "certain other
payments" are?  What kind of favors can I purchase?  Is there a menu?

Russ Smith

- --
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, 13 Aug 2001 23:14:46 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reminder: ALSC Meeting Webcast Today

I was finally able to get into the bridge to listen in on the second 
half of the meeting.  I found it disappointing in that it is the same 
old same old "how are we going to define the at-large (great 
unwashed)" and "how do we fund it" and "should the users get to 
have half the board seats."  

From some of the comments from the audience, I got the 
impression that there is a great need for education of the general 
populace out there.  I also got the impression that the committee 
is fully aware of the lack of balance on the board and that the 
greatest portion of the "community" is not at all represented.  

One comment from the panel was that of four categories for 
representation, two are "netizens" and "users."  Netizens are those 
with some knowledge of what is going on and users may never 
even have heard of ICANN, but use the net in some way or are 
impacted in some way (the majority of the world).  Netizens are the 
ones who actually joined or attempted to join the at-large and are, 
in fact reasonably representative of the at-large community.  It was 
pointed out that hundreds of thousands are big numbers and far 
more representative than those in the SOs that select the majority 
of the board now.

Missing the first half was not a good thing.  I hope we'll have a 
replay somehow so that the entire context will be available.  I 
missed most of the panel's statements.

One large question, however, is what is the $450,000 being spent 
on and where is the transparency?

Leah

On 13 Aug 2001, at 20:24, Joanna Lane wrote:

> Me too.
> 
> Joanna
> 
> on 8/13/01 7:28 PM, L Gallegos at [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> > Well, so much for the webcast.  Could not get to the login.
> > Shades of registering as an at-large member.
> > 
> > On 13 Aug 2001, at 20:47, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> Just a quick reminder that the ICANN At Large Study
> >> Committee outreach meeting starts in four hours!
> >> http://www.atlargestudy.org/sv_mtg.shtml
> >> 
> >> Best regards,
> >> /// Alexander
> >> 
> >> Some local time info:
> >> Anchorage            --  Monday, 13 August 2001 15:00-19:00h
> >> L.A./Mexico City     --  Monday, 13 August 2001 16:00-20:00h
> >> Denver/San Salvador  --  Monday, 13 August 2001 17:00-21:00h
> >> Chicago/Lima         --  Monday, 13 August 2001 18:00-22:00h
> >> New York/Caracas     --  Monday, 13 August 2001 19:00-23:00h
> >> Halifax/Montevideo   --  Monday, 13 August 2001 20:00-24:00h
> >> London/Algiers       -- Tuesday, 14 August 2001 00:00-04:00h
> >> Paris/Cape Town      -- Tuesday, 14 August 2001 01:00-05:00h
> >> Athens/Cairo/Nairobi -- Tuesday, 14 August 2001 02:00-06:00h
> >> Moscow/Teheran       -- Tuesday, 14 August 2001 03:00-07:00h
> >> Tashkent             -- Tuesday, 14 August 2001 04:00-08:00h
> >> New Delhi            -- Tuesday, 14 August 2001 04:30-08:30h
> >> Dhaka                -- Tuesday, 14 August 2001 05:00-09:00h
> >> Bangkok/Hanoi        -- Tuesday, 14 August 2001 06:00-10:00h
> >> Beijing/Perth        -- Tuesday, 14 August 2001 07:00-11:00h
> >> Tokyo/Seoul          -- Tuesday, 14 August 2001 08:00-12:00h
> >> Melbourne/Sydney     -- Tuesday, 14 August 2001 09:00-13:00h
> >> Vladivostok          -- Tuesday, 14 August 2001 10:00-14:00h
> >> Wellington/Suva      -- Tuesday, 14 August 2001 11:00-15:00h
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> ___ forwarded message:
> >> ______________________________________________________
> >> 
> >> From: [email-masked] (Denise Michel)
> >> Date: 09.08.01, 11:07:25
> >> Subject: [ALSC-Forum] Audio Streaming of ALSC August 13 Outreach
> >> Meeting
> >> 
> >> 
> >> The ALSC invites all interested individuals (with the requisite
> >> Internet access/tools*) who are unable to attend in person to
> >> listen to our August 13 outreach meeting on the Internet in
> >> real-time. Instructions to access the meeting:
> >> 
> >> AUDIO STREAMING ACCESS INFORMATION:
> >> 
> >> 1. Establish your Internet connection (August 13, no earlier than
> >> 15:45 Pacific Time). 2. Launch (start) your Internet browser (make
> >> sure your security level is set to "medium" or lower) . 3. Go to
> >> http://www.e-meetings.wcom.com 4. Click on "Attend a Webcast" (in
> >> the column on the right). 5. From the "Audio Streaming/Replay"
> >> menu, select "Leader/Participant Join". 6. Enter the "Conference
> >> ID" 8068204; enter the "Conference Passcode" ICANN; enter
> >> "participant information" (your name and email address**), and
> >> click on "Proceed"
> >> 
> >> *See:  http://www.e-meetings.wcom.com/webcast/requirements.php3
> >> **This information will be reviewed by the ALSC to help determine
> >> the utility of audio streaming for future meetings, and will then
> >> be destroyed.
> >> 
> >> If you have statements/questions to share during the outreach
> >> meeting, please email them to our on-line forum at
> >> http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum.shtml with "Aug. 13 Outreach
> >> Meeting Comment" in the subject line.  We will attempt to include
> >> your comment in the meeting.
> >> 
> >> The meeting agenda and other information is available at
> >> http://www.atlargestudy.org/sv_mtg.shtml
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Denise Michel
> >> Executive Director
> >> At Large Study Committee
> >> [email-masked]
> >> Denise Michel
> >> Executive Director
> >> At Large Study Committee
> >> [email-masked]
> >> 
> >> ___ end of forwarded message
> >> ________________________________________________
> >> 
> >> 
> >> --
> >> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 23:25:42 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: [ga] Another committee of cronies?

===

ICANN's President, M. Stuart Lynn, consulted with the DNSO Names Council,
PSO Protocol Council, and the chairs of the Internet Engineering Task Force,
the Internet Architecture Board, and the ICANN Root Server System Advisory
Committee to locate a diverse and knowledgeable group of members for the New
TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force. The following individuals who
have graciously agreed to serve on the Task Force, in addition to Dr. Lynn
as chair:

Jaap Akkerhui
Sebastien Bachollet
Marilyn S Cade
David R. Conrad
Michael Heltzer
Geoff Huston
Roberto Laorden
Vany Martinez
YJ Park

One or more other members may be added later. In addition, Mr. Adrian Pinder
(of the U.K. Government) will serve as liaison between the New TLD
Evaluation Process Planning Task Force and the Governmental Advisory
Committee.
=======

Is there anyone on this list representing the people and small businesses
that would actually be purchasing and using these domains?  The only people
on the list I know are Marilyn Cade who is a Washington DC lobbyist for AT&T
and Michael Heltzer who is a lobbyist for INTA ... and we all know what the
INTA representatives have done to .info.  These two certainly don't
represent the majority of the potential domain registrants.  I have asked
many times how these committees get chosen.  They won't answer so I can only
guess.

As for the groups chose by Lynn for advice their seems to be rhyme or reason
to look at such a miniscule portion of the internet community who would be
using the domains.  At this point there is not much of an issue whether
additional TLDs can be added, the issues are the types of domains that will
be added, the restrictions placed on who can register, and the registration
procedures.  There are many, many more groups that should have been
consulted.

Russ Smith

- --
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, 13 Aug 2001 22:30:34 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Give till it hurts

At 11:08 PM -0400 13/8/01, admin wrote:
>I will have to get my card out.  I wonder what these "certain other
>payments" are?  What kind of favors can I purchase?  Is there a menu?

Noooo! Payments for ICANN favours CAN NOT be paid by credit card. AUDIT
TRAIL! WHOOP WHOOP!

All favours must be paid for via numbered offshore bank accounts.

ICANN staff will be able to confirm the a/c details with you.

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

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

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 20:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: technizmo <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

- --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Consensus of some small subset of the affected
> community should never be generalized to mean >
consensus of the larger community.  

OK.  Given this, does this make every decision yet
made by the ICANN and DNSO illegitimate?  Or has the
corporation been sufficiently represented by the
affected community of worldwide internet users and
providers.

> At a bare minimum there should be a 
> documented outreach to the broader community > and
documented results of that outreach.  If in 
> the end, the outreach efforts are deemed to be 
> reasonable and members of the broader 
> community are non-responsive, then it may be 
> acceptable to conclude that they are not
> interested and move forward with a consensus 
> based on those who are interested.

Outreach for additional DNSO GA membership should not
be undertaken for the sole purpose of legitimizing a
specific position on a specific issue.  Better to
perform outreach at all times, to educate non-members
as to the fact that they may have a stake in the
proceedings.  They can then make up their own minds
based on the discussion in this forum.  

Conversely, support for a specific position on a
specific issue should not be judged based on the
amount it is advertised, but rather (and more simply)
on the support it receives from participating members.

> It is not only possible but also reasonable that 
> on many issues it will not be possible to reach a >
community consensus.  That is perfectly okay.

Agreed.

> In those cases we should simply let market 
> forces work as freely as possible and allow 
> diversity so that consumers can choose what
> best meets their needs and interests.

Sounds good, but those market forces have permitted
absurdly large organizations to evolve, sufficiently
powerful enough to take advantage of and control the
ICANN and DNSO, creating barriers to entry for
anything resembling a "consumer" interest.  This is
evidenced in BoD representation, DNSO constituency
structure, and the auto-NACK debacle. 

Sincerely,
Jason Graff

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 23:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Another committee of cronies?

On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, admin wrote:

>
> ===
>
> ICANN's President, M. Stuart Lynn, consulted with the DNSO Names Council,
> PSO Protocol Council, and the chairs of the Internet Engineering Task Force,
> the Internet Architecture Board, and the ICANN Root Server System Advisory
> Committee to locate a diverse and knowledgeable group of members for the New
> TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force. The following individuals who
> have graciously agreed to serve on the Task Force, in addition to Dr. Lynn
> as chair:
>
> Jaap Akkerhui
> Sebastien Bachollet
> Marilyn S Cade
> David R. Conrad
> Michael Heltzer
> Geoff Huston
> Roberto Laorden
> Vany Martinez
> YJ Park
>
> One or more other members may be added later. In addition, Mr. Adrian Pinder
> (of the U.K. Government) will serve as liaison between the New TLD
> Evaluation Process Planning Task Force and the Governmental Advisory
> Committee.
> =======
>
> Is there anyone on this list representing the people and small businesses
> that would actually be purchasing and using these domains?  The only people
> on the list I know are Marilyn Cade who is a Washington DC lobbyist for AT&T
> and Michael Heltzer who is a lobbyist for INTA ...

Perhaps we can all work together to fill in the gaps:
David Conrad - ISC(makers/packagers of BIND)
Geoff Huston - Telstra
YJ Park - Member of the Names Council (I believe the non-commercial
constituency, somone correct me if I am wrong)

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               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, 14 Aug 2001 00:57:59 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Another committee of cronies?

> From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 11:15 PM

> On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, admin wrote:

> > ICANN's President, M. Stuart Lynn, consulted with the DNSO 
> Names Council,
> > PSO Protocol Council, and the chairs of the Internet 
> Engineering Task Force,
> > the Internet Architecture Board, and the ICANN Root Server 
> System Advisory
> > Committee to locate a diverse and knowledgeable group of 
> members for the New
> > TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force. The following 
> individuals who
> > have graciously agreed to serve on the Task Force, in 
> addition to Dr. Lynn
> > as chair:
> >
> > Jaap Akkerhui
> > Sebastien Bachollet
> > Marilyn S Cade
> > David R. Conrad
> > Michael Heltzer
> > Geoff Huston
> > Roberto Laorden
> > Vany Martinez
> > YJ Park
> >
> > One or more other members may be added later. In addition, 
> Mr. Adrian Pinder
> > (of the U.K. Government) will serve as liaison between the New TLD
> > Evaluation Process Planning Task Force and the Governmental Advisory
> > Committee.
> > =======
> >
> > Is there anyone on this list representing the people and 
> small businesses
> > that would actually be purchasing and using these domains?  
> The only people
> > on the list I know are Marilyn Cade who is a Washington DC 
> lobbyist for AT&T
> > and Michael Heltzer who is a lobbyist for INTA ...
> 
> Perhaps we can all work together to fill in the gaps:
> David Conrad - ISC(makers/packagers of BIND)
> Geoff Huston - Telstra
> YJ Park - Member of the Names Council (I believe the non-commercial
> constituency, somone correct me if I am wrong)
Marilyn Cade - AT&T.
- --
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, 14 Aug 2001 10:14:48 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Clarification] New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force

Patrick Greenwell wrote:
|
| Perhaps we can all work together to fill in the gaps:
| David Conrad - ISC(makers/packagers of BIND)
| Geoff Huston - Telstra
| YJ Park - Member of the Names Council (I believe the non-commercial
| constituency, somone correct me if I am wrong)
|

The persons nominated by the Names Council after consultation
with Constituencies are listed at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00683.html

   Stuart, the NC would like to nominate the following 6 people
   for the Board's TLD group. I've included e-mail addresses
   for those who are not members of the NC.

   Marilyn Cade/AT&T/US    business constituency
   Sebastien Bachollet/CIGREF/Europe [email-masked] business constituency

   Michael Heltzer/INTA/US [email-masked] IP constituency

   YJ Park/Asia Pacific non commercial constituency
   Vany Martinez/Central America non commercial constituency

   Jaap Akkerhuis, [email-masked] Europe ccTLD constituency

   Philip Sheppard
   NC Chair

FYI, the New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force document is
at http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/

   ICANN's President, M. Stuart Lynn, consulted with the DNSO
   Names Council, PSO Protocol Council, and the chairs of the
   Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board,
   and the ICANN Root Server System Advisory Committee to locate
   a diverse and knowledgeable group of members for the New TLD
   Evaluation Process Planning Task Force. The following individuals
   who have graciously agreed to serve on the Task Force,
   in addition to Dr. Lynn as chair:

   Jaap Akkerhui
   Sebastien Bachollet
   Marilyn S Cade
   David R. Conrad
   Michael Heltzer
   Geoff Huston
   Roberto Laorden
   Vany Martinez
   YJ Park

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, 14 Aug 2001 09:59:35 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Consensus - Was: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived

since I was CCed directly.....brief comment.

rough consensus is in some ways only practical when there is an underlying 
agreement about the goals of the organization.
in the IETF case, the underlying agreement includes "the Internet should 
work", and "decisions should be based on technical argument".
How we defend these underlying agreements is an interesting study.

it was something of an "aha" for me when someone pointed out that Robert's 
rules of order were not written for disagreements among friends, but in 
order to get work done in the face of entrenched enmity and total distrust 
of each other.

The Tao of IETF and Code of Conduct documents are probably the best 
pointers to the "rough consensus" idea.

What kind of environment has the GA proven to be?

               Harald

- --On 11. august 2001 11:42 +0000 Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> I concur with Bret's comment.
> Is there any disagreement to posting this concern as the concern of the
> GA  (which means that we keep the concept of consensus)?
> It will also be nice if the GA could come to an agreement on a definition
> of  consensus. If I remember correctly, the leading example we used in
> former  discussions on the subject was the IETF consensus-building
> process. Maybe Harald or Sandy can point to some RFCs that we can use to
> start with,  as soon as they are back from London.
> Incidentally, talking about Sandy, I like the "IETF Guidelines for
> Conduct"
> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-poisson-code-04.txt), and
> I  would not mind using that draft as the basis for the GA's "code of
> conduct"  (mutatis mutandis, obviously). But this we can discuss another
> time.
>

- --
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, 14 Aug 2001 10:02:09 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Consensus - Was: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived

welcome to the circle.

- --On 11. august 2001 10:59 -0400 admin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Your extremely small circle of cronies who are making the
> decisions are very, very far removed from the average domain/Internet user
> so I don't see how the nonsense you are involved with here could ever be
> considered a "consensus" except among these small circle of cronies.

- --
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, 14 Aug 2001 17:01:18 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reminder: ALSC Meeting Webcast Today

At 15:14 14/08/01, L Gallegos wrote:
>I was finally able to get into the bridge to listen in on the second
>half of the meeting.  I found it disappointing in that it is the same
>old same old "how are we going to define the at-large (great
>unwashed)" and "how do we fund it" and "should the users get to
>have half the board seats."

Thanks very much for that first report, Leah.
I was very frustrated not to be able to hear the webcast, for which I had 
taken precious time out.
I hope we will see a full report on the ALSC site and on independent sites 
soon. This is badly needed to come to an assessment of the 3 options that 
we have so far been presented with.

- --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: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:23:38 +0900
From: "YJ Park" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Another committee of cronies?

Patrick and all

> Perhaps we can all work together to fill in the gaps:
> David Conrad - ISC(makers/packagers of BIND)
> Geoff Huston - Telstra
> YJ Park - Member of the Names Council (I believe the non-commercial
> constituency, somone correct me if I am wrong)

I volunteered to represent the people and small businesses that 
would actually be purchasing and using these domains under little
exposure to new TLD decision-making or selection process with
a non-commercial constituency hat.

If there is any concern you want to bring to this group, please, let
us be aware of it. It would be rewarding to bridge between the 
cronies and users/small businesses.

However, I don't think I have never been in the cronies.:-)

Thanks,
YJ

- --
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, 14 Aug 2001 11:43:18 +0100
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Temporary Suspension of Batch Delete Process

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_00A0_01C124B6.500C0F60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Call me cynical, but it would seem Verisign already knows the outcome =
they desire from this.

They issued an advisory stating limits for the registrars, which has =
obviously been seen as a green light to registrars (which is an entirely =
logical outcome).  By setting uniform limits Verisign created a level =
playing field for the registrars and also encouraged participation in =
this lucrative area of registration.

Yet now we have Verisign crying to ICANN about the registrars running at =
the limits they themselves set.  This smells of a calculated plan by =
Verisign to emphasize the number registration requests and to allow them =
to suspend the deletions and give the impression that they are looking =
for a solution.  This solution will, no doubt, involve Verisign =
generating revenue from the deletions - whether by their being a =
participant in the re-registrations or by some other means.

The obvious solution is to penalize registrars who abuse the network, =
but this would not actually benefit Verisign financially and that is, in =
my opinion, why they dismiss this obvious route so readily.

The ICANN accreditation demands that domains are deleted if not renewed. =
 A landrush system would surely amount to transferring the domains and =
this would create a whole raft of problems.

If Verisign were to spread the deletions across a whole day all that =
would create is continuous monitoring by the registrars rather than a =
small timeframe during which this activity occurs.  As it stands, the =
window during which the deletions take place does not impact the normal =
operation of registrars during their peak hours.

The solution would seem to be to set a maximum level at which the =
registrars can operate, maybe by taking a realistic loading at the =
registry and dividing by the anticipated number of registrars and =
blocking attempts in excess of this level.

Of course, this would not generate any revenues for Verisign so I doubt =
this workable solution will be the one implemented.

One thing is for sure, Verisign has no real interest in discussing this =
issue in this forum.

- ------=_NextPart_000_00A0_01C124B6.500C0F60
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 content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2722.2800" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Call me cynical, but it would seem =
Verisign already=20
knows the outcome they desire from this.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>They issued an advisory stating limits =
for the=20
registrars, which has obviously been seen as a green light to registrars =
(which=20
is an entirely logical outcome).&nbsp; By setting uniform limits =
Verisign=20
created a level playing field for the registrars and also encouraged=20
participation in this lucrative area of registration.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Yet now we have Verisign crying to =
ICANN about the=20
registrars running at the limits they themselves set.&nbsp; This smells =
of a=20
calculated plan by Verisign to emphasize the number registration =
requests and to=20
allow them to suspend the deletions and give the impression that they =
are=20
looking for a solution.&nbsp; This solution will, no doubt, involve =
Verisign=20
generating revenue from the deletions - whether by their being a =
participant in=20
the re-registrations or by some other means.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The obvious solution is to penalize =
registrars who=20
abuse the network, but this would not actually benefit Verisign =
financially and=20
that is, in my opinion, why they dismiss this&nbsp;obvious route so=20
readily.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The ICANN accreditation demands that =
domains are=20
deleted if not renewed.&nbsp; A landrush system would surely amount to=20
transferring the domains and this would create a whole raft of=20
problems.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If Verisign were to spread the =
deletions across a=20
whole day all that would create is continuous monitoring by the =
registrars=20
rather than a small timeframe during which this activity occurs.&nbsp; =
As it=20
stands, the window during which the deletions take place does not impact =
the=20
normal operation of registrars during their peak hours.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The solution would seem to be to set a =
maximum=20
level at which the registrars can operate, maybe by taking a realistic =
loading=20
at the registry and dividing by the anticipated number of registrars and =

blocking attempts in excess of this level.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Of course, this would not generate any =
revenues for=20
Verisign so I doubt this workable solution will be the one=20
implemented.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>One thing is for sure, Verisign has no =
real=20
interest in discussing this issue in this =
forum.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_00A0_01C124B6.500C0F60--

- --
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, 14 Aug 2001 05:07:23 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Temporary Suspension of Batch Delete Process

Tuesday, Tuesday, August 14, 2001, 3:43:18 AM, Paul Cotton wrote:
> The ICANN accreditation demands that domains are deleted if not renewed.

Where does it do this?

Nothing I've read says this anywhere.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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, 14 Aug 2001 12:25:09 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Review TF deadline

Folks,

As you have seen in the recent message from our Chair 
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00289.html) the Review TF should 
have a first report to NC on 2001-08-16, and therefore tomorrow 2001-08-15 
is the first deadline for submissions.

I have reported so far on the following points:

2. Web-based fora as alternatives to lists. Lead Peter.
see http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc01/msg00003.html

3. GA Chair  Lead Philip
The GA proposes to modify the current system and to use for GA Chair 
election a procedure similar to the election of other officers, like the 
Task Force Reps.
This consists of two steps.
In the first one, the subscribers to the GA-voting-Registry nominate 
candidates.
In the second one, the subscribers to the GA-voting-Registry vote with the 
usual system on the candidates that have accepted nomination.
The GA has expressed its preference for this method on several occasions, 
like in MdR-2000 (see 
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/archive/scribe-icann-111400.html#issues). 
Further evidence will be posted in the next days.

I intend to report the following points - please scream loud if you 
disagree:

4. Constituency formation / individuals constituency Lead Axel
The GA recognizes the need to establish general rules for creation of new 
constituencies, but demands also a statement of principle by NC declaring 
the availability to evaluate in the shortest delays a proposal for 
Individuals/Registrants.
(as contained in http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00414.html)

6. Consensus.  Lead Milton
The GA has not reached consensus on consensus, but two concerns appear:
- - the word "consensus" is hardcoded in some ICANN documents and cannot 
therefore be dropped 
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00292.html);
- - some people in the GA find that the discussion on this item is 
unnecessarily diverting focus from more important and urgent matters and 
would be in favour of dropping the subject.

On the following items no real discussion has taken place:
1. Working groups. Lead: Philip
5. Language diversity/ translation of DNSO papers Lead Milton

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

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

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 08:35:02 -0400
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

Are there more than 100 organizations actively represented in
the ccTLD constituency? 

(We both know the answer is no - about 30
actually participate).

>>> "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]> 08/13/01 07:12PM >>>
If and when a set of documents to form the idho, or whatever it evolves
to be called, with aa significant number of persons and organizations
signing off on it (more than 100) I would endorse it for presentation to the ICANN board.

- --
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, 14 Aug 2001 14:00:13 +0100
From: "Paul Cotton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Temporary Suspension of Batch Delete Process

Hi William,

- ----- Original Message -----
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Tuesday, Tuesday, August 14, 2001, 3:43:18 AM, Paul Cotton wrote:
> The ICANN accreditation demands that domains are deleted if not renewed.

Where does it do this?

Nothing I've read says this anywhere.

- ---- ends ---

Heres the part of the registrar accred agreement I was referring to:

"3.7.5 Registrar shall register Registered Names to Registered Name Holders
only for fixed periods. At the conclusion of the registration period,
failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to pay a renewal fee
within the time specified in a second notice or reminder shall, in the
absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the
registration. In the event that ICANN adopts a specification or policy
concerning procedures for handling expiration of registrations, Registrar
shall abide by that specification or policy."

Taken from : http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm
 (I know we are talking about the registry not a registrar, but this
paragraph describes how the registration will be cancelled, a function
performed by the registry in line with the registrar agreement):

I don't recall that last sentence being there the last time I looked at this
document, but even in the current context, "cancellation of the
registration" is pretty clear.  That last sentence would give Verisign the
necessary means of getting their own way by playing puppet master to ICANN
though.

Regards

Paul Cotton
Director
SafetyNet Systems Ltd
www.joinin.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #670
************************