Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #671
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, August 14 2001           Volume 01 : Number 671

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

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 15:00:19 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

"Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Are there more than 100 organizations actively represented in
> the ccTLD constituency? 
> 
> (We both know the answer is no - about 30
> actually participate).

==> You are icorrect Milton.

    We had 95 ccTLD Registries contributing to ICANN (sending money,
              more than 1 million USD, all from foreign countries)
    We had 98 ccTLD Registries voting in our elections
    We had 70 ccTLD Registries physically represented at Geneva meeting
              last February

    If you consider in domain names or in population of countries
    from which ccTLD Registries come, and which Local Internet 
    Communities they represent sometimes, the active participation
    is approximately 99 percent.

    Elisabeth Porteneuve
    ccTLD NC rep

> 
> >>> "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
> 
> 

- --
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 06:22:28 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Temporary Suspension of Batch Delete Process

Quite a big stretch, Paul.

> 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."

It mostly says that in the event that a policy is adopted.

The registrars comply by sending the commands to the registry.  The
domain is deregistered, just not made available for reregistration.

There is nothing mandating that it be made available.

Perhaps there should be something that says that, but right now there
isn't.  Just like there is really no mechanism for the registry to
enforce sanctions against registrars who are abusive in their
registration activity currently.

Tuesday, Tuesday, August 14, 2001, 6:00:13 AM, Paul Cotton wrote:

> 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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
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 08:52:51 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Another committee of cronies?

Wow, those are all people who have excuses made for them as they are 
overworked and this is cause of their lack of attention to detail.  I can 
not image how they would have time to do more.

That is strange or they are not overworked and their lack of attention to 
detail is really not that, which makes more likely logical sense.

As far adding new TLDs, it really doesn't matter as technology has already 
moved beyond the requirement for an Authoritative Root.  Yes, there will be 
hard times for .biz and .info registrants regardless of which network they 
are using.  I estimate in about one year these folks (ICANN, etc.) will be 
asking their contacts for new jobs.

Also, Russ, if you are interested I know from experience how people are 
chosen to become a part of one of these groups.  It is not a fair process 
and has nothing to with technical skill, knowledge, or understanding.  The 
IETF has not been a technical standard setting body for a while now as we 
all are working with other groups who do require technical skill, 
knowledge, and understanding.

good morning, by the way,

~k

At 11:25 PM 8/13/2001 -0400, 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 ... 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

- --
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: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 00:06:31 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Another committee of cronies?

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 23:25:42 -0400, Russ Smith 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 ... 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.

Hi Russ

Geoff Huston is fairly well-known in the internet community, particularly in
Australia, and is easily found on google.com.  He is the former sub-delegate
for .edu.au.  His home page provides publications and other information.

There are no privacy implications in my providing the following links:

http://www.telstra.net/gih/
http://www.telstra.net/gih/#papers

Chief Scientist, Telstra Internet
Member, Internet Architecture Board
Secretary, Executive Committee, APNIC
Co-chair, Internet Engineering and Planning Group

http://www.anu.edu.au/mail-archives/link/link9906/0474.html
http://www.anu.edu.au/mail-archives/link/link9906/0476.html

As Chair, Internet Society Board of Trustees, see for example:
http://www.isoc.org/members/vote/2000election/2000results.shtml

Hope this helps.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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 10:18:44 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Gin, whiskey and litigation

- --part1_9.19dc9a49.28aa8d44_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Of the many dot info registrations of generic terms which are being called 
into question, a significant number appear to emanate from two registrars - 
Yesnic and Tucows.  Examples would be LIFE, LOVE, AUDIO, LAWYER and MILK 
(what more do you need?) from Yesnic.  Tucows' examples would be GIN, WHISKEY 
and LITIGATION.

Many of the Yesnic registrations identify Yesnic as the registrant 
organization.  Several of the Tucows' regs use 2040 as the trademark 
registration date (different registrants), suggesting perhaps a default date 
on a form.

Have Afilias, Yesnic or Tucows made any statements as to whether these were 
caused by erroneous submission of a batch of non-sunrise applications? (the 
much-publicized science.info reg was submitted by csc, not these two).

- --part1_9.19dc9a49.28aa8d44_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2>Of the many dot info registrations of generic terms which are being called 
<BR>into question, a significant number appear to emanate from two registrars - 
<BR>Yesnic and Tucows. &nbsp;Examples would be LIFE, LOVE, AUDIO, LAWYER and MILK 
<BR>(what more do you need?) from Yesnic. &nbsp;Tucows' examples would be GIN, WHISKEY 
<BR>and LITIGATION.
<BR>
<BR>Many of the Yesnic registrations identify Yesnic as the registrant 
<BR>organization. &nbsp;Several of the Tucows' regs use 2040 as the trademark 
<BR>registration date (different registrants), suggesting perhaps a default date 
<BR>on a form.
<BR>
<BR>Have Afilias, Yesnic or Tucows made any statements as to whether these were 
<BR>caused by erroneous submission of a batch of non-sunrise applications? (the 
<BR>much-publicized science.info reg was submitted by csc, not these two).</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_9.19dc9a49.28aa8d44_boundary--
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:33:40 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Review TF deadline

>
>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.

MILTON, WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF DROPPING THE SUBJECT:  WE ARE IN FAVOR OF 
CORRECTING THE PROBLEM.  THE PROBLEM IS THE ICANN AND THE DICTIONARY HAVE 
CONFLICTING DEFINITIONS OF ONE WORD AND OBVIOUSLY THE DICTIONARY IS THE 
AUTHORITY AND THE ICANN IS INCORRECT.

(Roberto said to be loud).

~k

- --
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 08:42:48 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Documentation request

On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 11:28:41AM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> Denying a proposal because one doesn't like the people supporting it is not
> politics of any honorable variety. It is slimey, subjective, and personal.
> It also doesn't serve the best interests of the ICANN, in the long run.

It's interesting how you take Miltons characteristically inaccurate and
insulting statement and run with it.  

The "powers that be" may or may not like the personalities involved, but
the FACT is that the "cyberspace association" (aka as the "IDNO") simply
does not credibly represent those that it claims to represent.  That is
a completely sufficient grounds for rejecting it.  In fact, it would have 
been totally irresponsible for the Board to do otherwise.

[200 lines of unnessary quoted text deleted]

- -- 
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, 14 Aug 2001 09:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Another committee of cronies?

On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, YJ Park wrote:

> 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.:-)

Having met you, neither do I. :-)

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               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 16:54:27 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Another committee of cronies?

Kristy wrote:

>understanding.  The
>IETF has not been a technical standard setting body for a while now as we
>all are working with other groups who do require technical skill,
>knowledge, and understanding.

May I know which are the other more authoritative Internet standard setting 
bodies that pop up every now and then on this list as alternative to the 
IETF (and maybe an estimate of the share of the market that follows them 
rather than the IETF as guidance for products and services)?
As a former employee of a telecom standard making body, I am just curious 
about the answer. Personally, I suspect that on this list we lose track of 
the dimension of the reality: a couple of dozen people should be 
representative of all Individual Domain Name Holders, a posting with a 
couple of "me too"s should be adopted by ICANN as a consensus policy 
statement, a team somewhere that nobody else has heard about may become the 
authoritative Internet standard setting body, the small percentage of users 
of the alternate roots should have priority over the A-root, and so on.
Quite interesting, methinks.

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 12:59:12 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Clarification] New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force

It is notable that there is no representation for domain name 
holders or those who would be part of the at-large membership.  It 
is typically biased to not include the vast majority of those affected.

On 14 Aug 2001, at 10:14, DNSO Secretariat wrote:

> 
> 
> 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-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

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

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 12:11:55 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Another committee of cronies?

At 04:54 PM 8/14/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>Kristy wrote:
>
>>understanding.  The
>>IETF has not been a technical standard setting body for a while now as we
>>all are working with other groups who do require technical skill,
>>knowledge, and understanding.
>
>
>May I know which are the other more authoritative Internet standard 
>setting bodies that pop up every now and then on this list as alternative 
>to the IETF (and maybe an estimate of the share of the market that follows 
>them rather than the IETF as guidance for products and services)?
>As a former employee of a telecom standard making body, I am just curious 
>about the answer. Personally, I suspect that on this list we lose track of 
>the dimension of the reality: a couple of dozen people should be 
>representative of all Individual Domain Name Holders, a posting with a 
>couple of "me too"s should be adopted by ICANN as a consensus policy 
>statement, a team somewhere that nobody else has heard about may become 
>the authoritative Internet standard setting body, the small percentage of 
>users of the alternate roots should have priority over the A-root, and so on.
>Quite interesting, methinks.

Yeah, yeah, ...  a couple dozen folks should not represent all IDNHs and 
using "me too's" as consensus may be laughable; however, I was hoping the 
DNSO would create a constituency for IDNHs like they have for the other 
groups.  And I was shocked when looking into the DNSO a couple/few years 
ago to discover that there was no representation for the largest group of 
netizens.  This concerns me and many others.  The GA is not representative 
of those people in the same fashion the ccTLD represents the country code 
top level domain holders, for example.

[IETF] Two great examples of what you are looking for are the W3C and the 
IEEE.  I don't know about their market share; but I do know that their 
suggestions do not conflict with themselves, whereas the IETF has many RFCs 
that are in absolute contradiction with each other as we have seen proof of 
when communicating about Authoritative Roots, etc.  Additionally, if we 
attend a meeting with either of these groups, technically astute people are 
participating.  We sent a visitor to the IETF's meeting held in Minnesota 
this year who recognized there were very few technical people present.

:)

~k

- --
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 13:25:56 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Another committee of cronies?

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 ...

> ...  I have asked many times how these committees get chosen.  They won't
> answer so I can only guess.

It seems to me the first paragraph quoted above answers your question.
- --
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 11:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Another committee of cronies?

On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> May I know which are the other more authoritative Internet standard setting
> bodies that pop up every now and then on this list as alternative to the
> IETF (and maybe an estimate of the share of the market that follows them
> rather than the IETF as guidance for products and services)?
> As a former employee of a telecom standard making body, I am just curious
> about the answer. Personally, I suspect that on this list we lose track of
> the dimension of the reality: a couple of dozen people should be
> representative of all Individual Domain Name Holders, a posting with a
> couple of "me too"s should be adopted by ICANN as a consensus policy
> statement,

It's more than ICANN uses to justify decisions.

What I have great difficulty understanding is why certain parties feel it
is appropriate to set the bar so incredibly high for recognition of
an Individual's constituency when nowhere in the ICANN structure has the
level of consensus/involved parties/documentation been required to
justify actions.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               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 15:43:00 -0400
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Requesting Input from the Constituencies

The NCDNHC is on record as passing a resolution supporting the
creation of an individual domain name holders constituency.

See http://www.ncdnhc.org/docs/resolution/Stockholm/ST-VANY.html

>>> <[email-masked]> 08/09/01 06:58AM >>>
Dear Names Council representatives,

The General Assembly is a cross-constituency meeting place.  Under discussion 
is an initiative to establish a new constituency to properly represent 
individuals.  It would be helpful to our discussions if we knew the position 
of each constituency regarding this matter.  We ask you to confer with your 
membership and to advise accordingly.  

At every plenary session of the Assembly, the constituencies are invited to 
speak to the Assembly and to report on issues and matters that concern the 
Internet community, the constituency, and the DNSO.  Such dialogue should 
occur not only at full sessions of the DNSO, but rather as required to deal 
with topics being evaluated.  Please consider this to be a formal invitation 
to now address the GA with respect to this initiative.   Your input will be 
highly valued and appreciated.

What position does your constituency take with regard to the establishment of 
a new constituency to better represent individuals?   We look forward to 
hearing your comments.

- --
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 16:11:28 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] Another committee of cronies?

all is gives is some vague explanation that Mr. Lyn looked into some groups.
i want to know the specific criteria used, who was eligable and not chosen,
etc.  The statement provided is meant to avoid answering the question I
pose.

besides, who is going to believe Lynn anyway?

Russ Smith

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Sandy
Harris
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 1:26 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Another committee of cronies?

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 ...

> ...  I have asked many times how these committees get chosen.  They won't
> answer so I can only guess.

It seems to me the first paragraph quoted above answers your question.
- --
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, 14 Aug 2001 16:25:20 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

Milton, 

Regardless of your comments about number of ccTLD's participating, that
has little to do with what I said.

When I said "100", I said persons or organizations signing off on a
document. Surely you have 100 persons to represent an IDNH constituency.
You should have thousands!

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Elisabeth Porteneuve
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 9:00 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

"Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Are there more than 100 organizations actively represented in the 
> ccTLD constituency?
> 
> (We both know the answer is no - about 30
> actually participate).

==> You are icorrect Milton.

    We had 95 ccTLD Registries contributing to ICANN (sending money,
              more than 1 million USD, all from foreign countries)
    We had 98 ccTLD Registries voting in our elections
    We had 70 ccTLD Registries physically represented at Geneva meeting
              last February

    If you consider in domain names or in population of countries
    from which ccTLD Registries come, and which Local Internet 
    Communities they represent sometimes, the active participation
    is approximately 99 percent.

    Elisabeth Porteneuve
    ccTLD NC rep

> 
> >>> "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
> 
> 

- --
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, 14 Aug 2001 16:45:02 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

Peter, 

Given a chance, there would be thousands of members.  However, 
since the BoD and NC have shot down every attempt at formation, 
people are now reluctant to do much until there is an indication 
that the Board will, in fact, approve one.  There has been no such 
indication and the chicen and egg routine continues.

It appears rather obvious that it is a similar attitude as that 
regarding the at-large.  The BoD doesn't want that "for real" 
participation and has put as many stumbling blocks as possible in 
its way.  The IDNHC is even worse.  Even with self formation it has 
been shot down time after time.  The climate is one of 
discouragement.

IMO, the NC should fully endorse the formation of this constituency 
and then people would set out to self form again.

Leah

On 14 Aug 2001, at 16:25, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Milton, 
> 
> Regardless of your comments about number of ccTLD's participating,
> that has little to do with what I said.
> 
> When I said "100", I said persons or organizations signing off on a
> document. Surely you have 100 persons to represent an IDNH
> constituency. You should have thousands!
> 
> Peter de Blanc
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 9:00 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request
> 
> 
> 
> "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 
> > Are there more than 100 organizations actively represented in the
> > ccTLD constituency?
> > 
> > (We both know the answer is no - about 30
> > actually participate).
> 
> ==> You are icorrect Milton.
> 
>     We had 95 ccTLD Registries contributing to ICANN (sending money,
>               more than 1 million USD, all from foreign countries)
>     We had 98 ccTLD Registries voting in our elections
>     We had 70 ccTLD Registries physically represented at Geneva
>     meeting
>               last February
> 
>     If you consider in domain names or in population of countries from
>     which ccTLD Registries come, and which Local Internet Communities
>     they represent sometimes, the active participation is
>     approximately 99 percent.
> 
>     Elisabeth Porteneuve
>     ccTLD NC rep
> 
> > 
> > >>> "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
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> --
> 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-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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #671
************************