Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #679
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, August 16 2001          Volume 01 : Number 679

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

Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:18:31 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Summary of Verisign meeting in Washington on WHOIS services

This first meeting by VeriSign (one of three scheduled) was designed to allow 
panelists representing Law Enforcement and Intellectual Property interests to 
address their concerns (subsequent sessions will allow for representatives of 
Privacy groups and others to express their views).  A representative for the 
FBI pointed out the need for accurate and timely world-wide information.  The 
head of the Intellectual Property Constituency, Steve Metalitz, required 
searchability across a broad spectrum of data fields.  

Information on this centralized WHOIS is to be found at:  
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-appw-com-16apr01.h

tm

Participants at this meeting noted that neither registrars nor other 
registries were specificly invited to attend, nor were representatives of the 
DNSO nor the NC WHOIS committee.   The lack of participants from IETF and 
other such groups was also noted.  Miriam Sapiro who headed the Verisign 
panel replied that the meeting was sufficiently publicized.  

It was asked (my question), will VeriSign abide by a consensus decision if 
privacy concerns outweigh the interests of the Intellectual property 
constituency.  I did not find the response to be satisfactory.  

This centralized WHOIS database raises many policy issues, especially with 
regard to privacy.  I would hope that the NC chooses to add this topic to 
their agenda and that policy matters can be resolved and honored prior to 
being presented with a "fait accompli" by VeriSign. 

I continue to be troubled by VeriSign side-stepping the DNSO, and would hope 
that they would choose to be more cooperative in the future.

- --
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, 16 Aug 2001 09:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: technizmo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Best Practices

Bill or Joanna,

Just a couple minor questions as I am evaluating the
BP document...

Regarding Principle 12, "Be regulatory rather than
controlling"...

Could you clarify these terms for me?  Websters begins
"Regulatory:  to control or direct..."

Regarding the definition of a Basis...

I agree that a Basis should be a description of the
facts underlying an Issue, but I don't agree that a
Basis should need to dictate how an action will
"resolve the Issue and impact current operations".  It
may, but it should not be necessary.  More likely, the
proposed resolution of an Issue will be delineated in
another context, like a Suggestion or a Proposal
(built upon a Basis for Discussion).

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: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:45:14 -0700
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

The webcast of today's teleconference of the Names Council is available at:

    http://www.lextext.com/nc16August2001.html

Due to technical difficulties, the first fifteen minutes were not recorded.
During that time, the NC conducted a roll call, approved the agenda (agenda
item 1), approved the minutes from the last meeting (agenda item 2), and
re-elected Philip Sheppard for another term as NC Chair. The webcast begins
near the start of the discussion of item 3 of the agenda, the timing of the
upcoming ICANN Board election for the DNSO seat.

As always, many thanks to the Names Council for continuing to make its
meetings open to the public in spite of budget constraints and for its
willingness to explore alternative, less expensive options for webcasting.

    -- Bret

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 13:00:33 -0400
From: "Cochetti, Roger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: VeriSign Global Registry Monthly Operator Reports

Danny-

I understand that this VGRS report is due to be posted shortly.

Roger

Roger J. Cochetti
Senior Vice President & Chief Policy Officer
VeriSign
[email-masked]
202-973-6600

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:18 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: VeriSign Global Registry Monthly Operator Reports

Dear gTLD representatives,

The VeriSign Global Registry Monthly Operator Reports appear to be current 
only up to May 31.  When can we expect to see the June and July reports 
posted to the constituency website?

Also, at some point, might you consider publicly archiving the "Community 
Feedback" that you receive at your website?  
- --
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, 16 Aug 2001 13:08:33 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Summary of Verisign meeting in Washington on WHOIS servi ces

Danny, thanks for posting this to the GA. 

I regret that I was unable to attend this meeting due to the lateness of
it's publication to the broadly interested community.  There was
regretfully, an important meeting which I was previously scheduled to
participate in which prevented my attending other than merely stopping by. I
had hoped to be able to spend at least a half hour there, but just wasn't
able to.  

I think we all both applaud Verisign for doing outreach, and remember that
this was an important part of the agreements during the last contract
negotiations. 

Of greater consequence and concern about the last meeting,  largely, the
technical community was not available and I think that is a serious loss.
Also, the broad ISP and business user community was not able to participate.

I understand from my outreach to Verisign that they intend to do other
meetings; I think it essential that this outreach be done in a way in which
the broad technical community's perspectives are a part of the very early
stages of the dialogue. I realize this presents challenges to Verisign to
organize and publicize. 

Perhaps it would be appropriate to ask for a meeting in Montevideo to take
preliminary input from the constituencies; realizing that the
representatives will still have to take consultation with their
constituencies after Montevideo. However, if Verisign came prepared with a
presentation, perhaps that could be a useful approach to ensure broader
input and awareness.

Regards, Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:19 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Summary of Verisign meeting in Washington on WHOIS
services

This first meeting by VeriSign (one of three scheduled) was designed to
allow 
panelists representing Law Enforcement and Intellectual Property interests
to 
address their concerns (subsequent sessions will allow for representatives
of 
Privacy groups and others to express their views).  A representative for the

FBI pointed out the need for accurate and timely world-wide information.
The 
head of the Intellectual Property Constituency, Steve Metalitz, required 
searchability across a broad spectrum of data fields.  

Information on this centralized WHOIS is to be found at:  
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-appw-com-16apr01
.h

tm

Participants at this meeting noted that neither registrars nor other 
registries were specificly invited to attend, nor were representatives of
the 
DNSO nor the NC WHOIS committee.   The lack of participants from IETF and 
other such groups was also noted.  Miriam Sapiro who headed the Verisign 
panel replied that the meeting was sufficiently publicized.  

It was asked (my question), will VeriSign abide by a consensus decision if 
privacy concerns outweigh the interests of the Intellectual property 
constituency.  I did not find the response to be satisfactory.  

This centralized WHOIS database raises many policy issues, especially with 
regard to privacy.  I would hope that the NC chooses to add this topic to 
their agenda and that policy matters can be resolved and honored prior to 
being presented with a "fait accompli" by VeriSign. 

I continue to be troubled by VeriSign side-stepping the DNSO, and would hope

that they would choose to be more cooperative in the future.

- --
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: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 13:03:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Documentation request

Hi Roberto:

I think the following document will clarify a lot what was the process of
creating, then organizing, then recognizing a constituency.

http://www.icann.org/dnso/constituency_groups.html
http://www.isoc.org/internet/issues/dns/990409.shtml

keep reading.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Vany,
>
> >
> >The Non-Commercial Domain Names Holders Constituency (and for sure other
> >ones) history is, perhaps, very different to the items you mentioned:
> >
> >1.  NCDNHC was created by ICANN
> >2.  Those organizations that requested the creation of NCDNHC made a call
> >to other organizations to join the NCDNHC (no mission statement at that
> >time, just the idea that the Non-Commercial sector will be represented also
> >in ICANN)
> >3.  Organizations began to join
> >4.  Such organizations worked together to create a charter where, and just
> >then, we began to define a mission statement and objectives
> >5.  Constituency was finally aprooved.
> >
> >In fact Peter, there were a constituency (I don't remember which one) that
> >was created and then two different groups was self-organizing it, and both
> >created a charter with mission statement, etc.   And then ICANN selected
> >the group with the best charter, mission statement, etc, for aprooval as a
> >constituency.
>
> For the record, that was exactly the NonCommercial Constituency (I'm
> surprised you could forget), and it exactly proves Peter's point, which is
> also mine.

> In Berlin 6 of the "initial" 7 Constituencies came with a single proposal,
> while there were two conflicting ones for NonCom. I tried an impossible
> mediation between Milton Muller and David Maher, without success. As a
> consequence, the Board deferred the creation of the NonCom to a later date.
>
Riht.  Now I remember two proposals.  However, always keep in mind that
NCDNHC was already created by the ICANN By-Laws and just then, proposals
were submited.

1.  Proposal submited by ISOC and other 34 organizations (Red de
Desarrollo Sostenible de Panama aka SDNP/Panama, who I represent in the
actual NCDNHC was involved with this iniciative)

2.  The other proposal now I remember is not the one submited by Milton.
It was the one submited by Michael Sondow.

3.  I checked, and I see now the third proposal, made by Milton (I wasn't
aware of it)

But, there were still another constituency that had three proposals...It
was the Intelectual Property Constituency.

> This is exactly the point: we need a proposal for Individuals that can be
> solid enough to be inclusive of the population we address, otherwise any
> other group could work on an alternative proposal that will have similar
> credibility, and we are back to square one.

But the willingness to create an Individual/Registrant Constituency has to
exists.

In the By-Laws of ICANN 7 constituencies was created without
proposals...Once they was created, proposals were submited
and later ICANN recognized the more appropiate charters for every constityency.

Once created this new constituency, such constituency shall self-organize
(make charter, how they will elect their NC members, etc). In this stage
of the process it can be one, two, three, etc, groups that wants to
self-organize such constituency.   Such groups would submit their
proposals of charter and then ICANN will recognize the charter that is more appropiate
for the new constituency. (as you may realize, Milton Mueller is now part
of the NCDNHC as delegate of Syracuse University, under the charter that
was aprooved under a different iniciative.

What we can do as DNSO is expose to ICANN the need of an
Individual Registrant Constituency (or whatever name is more accurate),
which sector of the Domain Names Holders will represent and how this will
serve in the interests of ICANN.   This should be enough for deciding to
create it.  If the ICANN wants more than this, then the best thing is that
they post all the requisites they require to form a new constituency.

Or maybe what they wanted to mean in Stockholm meeting is that, they want
to see from DNSO is a paper suggesting new procedures to create,
self-organize and recognize new constituencies?

> >The bottom line here is that ICANN Board has to create a constituency
> >before doing anything else.   Please, note that "create" a constituency is
> >not the same as "aprooval" of a constituency.
>
> Please have a second look at the minutes from the Berlin meeting
> (http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-27may99.htm). The Board has *deferred
> consideration* of the proposal for an Individual Constituency until the
> initial Constituency were operational (condition fulfilled) and until it was
> not going to be clarified what relationship would there be between the
> AtLarge and the Individual Constituency.
> Hence, the need to work in coordination with Carl Bildt's committee to make
> sure that there's no overlap.
Ooohh!!! this is another issue (I wasn't in Berlin 1999 anyway).  Is not
clear yet the relationship between At-Large and Individual Constituency?
I am surprised that ICANN is not clear about this relationship yet.

> >Also, ICANN Board never requested from any constituency a financial
> >strcuture, and is not an obligation to have one.   Of course that if after
> >aprooval of the constituency, it may happen that expenses are made and that
> >such constituency may contribute or not, this is another issue....but such
> >issues are not required for the ICANN By-Laws to have a new constituency.
> >  Or at least the ICANN By-Laws doesn't specify it.
>
>
> Again, the answer is in the Berlin meeting, see
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/exhibita.htm. *All* proposals address the
> funding, some a mission statement and all a statement of purpose.
> I would play it safe, and make sure that we produce all these elements in
> the proposal for a new constituency.
NCDNHC doesn't address funding issue because by Charter, our membership is
free (and with free membership we were aprooved by ICANN).

Best Regards
Vany

- -- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
Fax: (507) 230-3455
e-mail: [email-masked]
http://www.sdnp.org.pa

- --
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, 16 Aug 2001 13:45:46 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

Roland,

I certainly appreciate the challenges of a consensus process that is not
based primarily on voting, but I'm still optimistic that the theory can be
applied in the real world.  I won't be shocked if I am proved wrong, but I
am still holding out hope.

Obviously, 90% of truly representative group is pretty solid evidence.  The
problems are to accomplish the representativeness and then do the vote.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 11:56 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Roeland Meyer; 'Sotiris Sotiropoulos'; ga
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

Then how about this;
majority 		> 51%
super majority 	> 66%
consensus		> 90%

The point is that, given a large group of people, counting noses is the only
thing that works. Anything less will have its legitimacy challenged at every
turn and the result of that will be grid-lock. That's the paractical issue.
On the legal front, we must be able to present evidenciary proof of every
decision. When Congress asks DOC for facts, the current consensus statements
are weak, rightly so. From a historical perspective, any decision reached by
a vague "consensus" definition will be indefensible and unusable in any
legal context. Basically, we may as well not say anything. The prime example
is the output of WG-A.

BTW Chuck, I actually agree with everything you say, in theory. I just
disagree, that it will be sufficient for this body to move forward with that
definition, in any practical context. In small committees, of experts, it is
easy to determine consensus. I do it at every design meeting. Even within
small groups of polecat^H^H^H^Hiticians, in those cases, I usually document
it as Unanimous Consent, with dissenting opinions. In larger groups, where
communications is usually the main problem, with individual lack of
preparation running a close second, voting/polling is the only way to weed
out the weak and ill-prepared articles and motions, in any sort of
reasonable time-frame.

We must design the process to fit the practical requirements.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 5:14 AM
> To: 'Roeland Meyer'; 'Sotiris Sotiropoulos'; ga
> Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?
> 
> 
> A '2/3 majority vote of participants' in my opinion is an 
> extremely weak
> definition of consensus.  It could serve as a guide during efforts to
> achieve consensus in the same way that a straw poll would.  
> It seems to me
> that votes or straw polls are good means of quantifying the degree of
> agreement/disagreement among 'participants' and that in turn 
> can be used as
> a step forward.  It would still be important though to try to modify
> proposals in an effort to try to reach a solution that better 
> satisfies the
> 1/3 opposed while still being acceptable to the 2/3 in favor. 
>  And possibly
> more importantly, the issue of representativeness of the 
> overall Internet
> community that is impacted by the issue at stake needs to be 
> dealt with.
> Consensus of some small subset of the affected community 
> should never be
> generalized to mean consensus of the larger community.  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.
> 
> The problem with the process I am talking about is that is a 
> very difficult
> process.  It takes lots of time and effort. Most of us want a 
> simple formula
> and I contend that there is not a simple formula.  I firmly 
> believe that the
> complexity and difficulty of the consensus process is a fact 
> of life if we
> truly want a bottoms-up consensus process.  Anything less 
> rigorous will be a
> sham.
> 
> Finally, one of the underlying assumptions that seems to be 
> prevalent is
> that we should always be able to come to a consensus 
> position.  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.  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.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 4:05 PM
> To: 'Sotiris Sotiropoulos'; ga
> 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
> 
- --
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: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:44:18 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition? 

Danny,

First of all we need to define the audience.  If you are concerned about
trying to find a consensus about the community at large, then measuring it
by registrars only is very inadequate.  There are many other stakeholders
involved besides registrars although I would agree that the registrars are
vital.  Obviously, a very critical group of stakeholders is made up of
registrants.  Other key stakeholder groups include resellers and registries.

In my (maybe too idealistic) opinion, every effort should be made to come up
with a solution that all parties are willing to accept and support.  This
means that all parties need to be willing to constructively participate in
the process.  In the end, if they cannot come up with a solution that all or
at least a very substantial portion of stakeholders will support, then maybe
it should be concluded that there is no consensus.  Of course, we have to
answer the question, what is 'a very substantial portion of the
stakeholders."

There are currently 91 active registrars all of varying sizes.  Do they all
have equal votes regardless of how impacted they will be with regard to the
policy?  Should only those who participate in the process be counted?
Should extra efforts be made to involve non-participants?  Should one key
stakeholder be able to block all efforts to reach consensus?  These
questions and others need to be answered and I don't claim to have the right
answers.

You will find that I tend to react negatively to any claim of consensus
based on a simple vote.  As I have stated elsewhere, I do not see voting as
the primary way of measuring consensus but rather as one tool to use on the
way to achieving consensus.  So, in response to your specific question, I
would not automatically say that an 80 to 2 vote of registrars means
consensus has been reached.  I would need more data: how many registrars
actually voted? how many registrants are represented by the 80 registrars
and the 2 registrars? what efforts were made to reach out to the registrars
who did not vote? what data is available from registrants? etc.

Chuck 

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 9:56 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Consensus... Definition? 

Chuck Gomes writes:  "Finally, one of the underlying assumptions that seems 
to be prevalent is
that we should always be able to come to a consensus position.  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.  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."

I think that we need to put this comment into perspective, so I will pose 
this question to Chuck:

If the two largest gTLD registrars (that between them register over 70% of 
all such domains) adopt an auto-NACK policy, and the remaining 80 other 
registrars vote to adopt an auto-ACK policy, would you consider this to be a

legitimate consensus for auto-ACK?  
- --
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: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:54:36 +0200
From: Robin Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-udrp] WWF - World Wide Fun

Hi Jefsey and Patrick,

Personally, my feeling is...

Go Panda GO... there is another net.bully using WWF out there. I have
suggestions for them for who to sue in Germany... WWF is being used by WDR as
well, the public TV stations here sued us and sued Keith Weiner over letters we
had every right to use. 

No tears from me for the WWFE. They've been consistently hostile to their fans
with home pages. They've been constantly suing little people over the
trademark. The World Wildlife Fund had to do something to protect their
trademark. By the way, World Wildlife Fund had a secret arrangement with the
WWFE to use WWF, which the WWFE broke and which prompted the lawsuit. I'm sure
this will be litigated for some time to come.

take care, Robin
- --
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, 16 Aug 2001 15:12:45 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] XTNS Launches New Domain Naming System

A point of clarification:

The ICANN did not participate in the creation or development of the 
Internet, nor did they come up with the terms you have referenced.  I am 
not sure who named DNS, TLD, et cedera; but I do know that the technology 
and their names have been around for much longer than we have known of 
ICANN's existence.  Also, ICANN works with a few TLDs whereas other Root 
Services work with many.

:)

~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: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:20:08 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

?what?

Bret?

There has been no public announcement that the DNSO needs money or would 
appreciate technical support for their meetings.  There has not been a 
membership drive or any information that leads me to believe your comment 
is true.  All I have read is that the DNSO experiences budget constraints 
and I don't buy it.  I don't know anyone who believes you.  If you need 
help, you must first ask for it and then be willing to receive it.

~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: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:33:23 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Does someone knows the REAL rules?

on 8/15/01 9:46 PM, Peter de Blanc at [email-masked] wrote:

> Joanna:
> Would you still be running for ICANN board after withdrawing from GA (if
> that occurs)?
> 
> Peter de Blanc

Peter,

You were completely correct in questioning my nomination for the Board, but
I can assure you that my actions were solely to provoke the focus of the
group. It was not my intention to single any member of the GA for criticism
and it was never my intention to withdraw from the election, or membership
of the GA, only from day to day work, specifically this list.

Maybe I overstepped the ground when I said that I needed 10 evaluations of
the BP, but I am pleased to say I have received a very positive response to
the call, and would also take this the opportunity to thank those who have
taken the time to provide feedback, both on and off-list. We look forward to
receiving more. 

No doubt you will agree that when something substantial is submitted, people
should be willing to weigh in on it, whether pro or con, and I didn't want
this work to be perpetually floating around with no way to guage its
possible merits for the community.

Regards,

Joanna

The URLs for Best Practices:
Part I: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00455.html
Part II:
HTML version: http://www.paradigm.nu/~istakeholder/flowchart.htm
PDF version: http://www.paradigm.nu/~istakeholder/flowchart.pdf (466 Kb)

Zipped PDF version: http://www.paradigm.nu/~istakeholder/flowchart.zip
(234
Kb)

- --
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, 16 Aug 2001 21:44:35 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-udrp] WWF - World Wide Fun 

This is actually preposterous. The DNs are the property of no one so of 
everyone. This decision may or not harm one or two WWF. This actually not 
my problem.

But it do harm me as an Internet User. I am entitled to be protected from 
the introduced confusion and from the routing collision this creates. When 
I click on an http://www.wwf.com link on a site, I will meet a turtlle and 
not the human fighter I expected. This makes me confused and makes me 
disapointed and waste time. All the more than when I want to see a turtle I 
keep using http://www.wwf.org .

The contract you refer to is obviously not valid as it involves something 
none of the parties had capacity to engage. This is only through cases like 
that that a jurisprudency may happen. To make it understood by the Juge I 
would suggest this:

1. the DN is not defined in the UDRP procedure, hence it has a common 
meaning: it is the name of a domain as per the domain owner or by the 
people reffering to the domain (common behavior)
2. the domain is the site. Is the site legitimate. Yes. Is WWF the name of 
the wreslting group, yes. So anyone - the WWF, me, you ... has the right to 
use http://www.wwf.com to access the wrestlers site.
3. I would suggest that the wrestler donates their DN to a non-profit. That 
non-profit would chose to use the DN for public convenience targeting a 
site of commercial nature wearing the WWF logo. This would probably remove 
the contract from the picture and lead to an interesting case.

Jefsey

On 17:29 16/08/01, Anupam said:
>The decision was based not principally on domain name or trademark "law,"
>but rather on a contract on the use of the "WWF" mark between the World
>Wrestling Federation and the World Wildlife Fund.  The environmental group
>has been successful, so far at least, in its argument that the wrestling
>organization violated the terms of the contract.
>
>Best,
>Anupam Chander
>
>
>
>on 8/16/01 4:56 AM, Jefsey Morfin at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Is that not crazy?
> > http://wwf.com is commercial with stuff for wrestlers
> > http://wwf.org is non commercial with panda stuff.
> >
> > has the WIPO been briefed about TLDs. Even St. Lynn ICP-3 Revelation Book
> > understands that.
> > has http://wwf.net been challenged?
> >
> > Should Panda not be entitled to http://wwf.int?
> > to who may be interested http://panda.cn seems to be free.
> >
> > Jefsey
> >
> >
> >
> > On 14:17 16/08/01, Patrick Corliss said:
> >> WWF - WWF can't use WWF : World Wrastlin Federation was sued by the World
> >> Wildlife Fund over the domain name wwf.com and lost. WWF's defense was 
> fans
> >> are too stupid to remember another URL. Too bad, they gotta change it now.
> >> lame.
> >>
> >> 
> http://forum.fuckedcompany.com/phpcomments/index.php?newsid=14614258659&page
> >> =1&parentid=0&crapfilter=1
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Patrick Corliss
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >> ("unsubscribe ga-udrp" 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #679
************************