Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #680
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, August 17 2001           Volume 01 : Number 680

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

Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:51:45 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] XTNS Launches New Domain Naming System

I should let the IETF and others more knowledgeable than I respond... many
of these terms were "coined" I believe by those who were the architects of
the Internet... 

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 6:13 PM
To: Tim Langdell
Cc: [email-masked]; Jefsey Morfin
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
- --
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 15:47:02 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

Kristy, once upon a time, in the early in the days of the DNSO, the Names
Council webcast all of its meetings, in real time, using the excellent
webcasting services of the Berkman Center. Real time webcasts, however,
typically require special software, special servers, and knowledgeable staff
support. That's expensive. I think the costs to the DNSO were running
several thousand dollars per half day of real time webcasting. About a year
and a half ago, when the Names Council was still trying to reach agreement
on permanent funding mechanisms, it decided to no longer offer webcasting
for its teleconferences, for budgetary reasons, but to provide 10 listen
only ports for members of the public who wanted to listen in. (Webcasting of
the in-person meetings are still provided.)

I don't think the budgetary problems are imaginary or over. As you may know,
some constituencies are having difficulty finding sources of funds to pay
their annual DNSO assessments. There *has* been a public call for voluntary
contributions, and Verisign set aside $100,000 in a matching fund as
encouragement. The DNSO may be more well funded today than it was when it
made its initial decision on webcasting, but its budget is still limited.
The NC has been very willing to accept assistance from volunteers, as their
use of these mp3 webcasts illustrates. (Contrast, for example, the NC's
encouragement of these webcasts with the closed teleconferences that the
ICANN Board still conducts.)

       -- Bret
          
Kristy McKee wrote:
> ?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 18:49:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

Hi Brett:

Thank you for clarifying to Kristy.  You said it better than I a month ago
when we was discussing the same issue.

Best Regards
Vany

On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Bret Fausett wrote:

> Kristy, once upon a time, in the early in the days of the DNSO, the Names
> Council webcast all of its meetings, in real time, using the excellent
> webcasting services of the Berkman Center. Real time webcasts, however,
> typically require special software, special servers, and knowledgeable staff
> support. That's expensive. I think the costs to the DNSO were running
> several thousand dollars per half day of real time webcasting. About a year
> and a half ago, when the Names Council was still trying to reach agreement
> on permanent funding mechanisms, it decided to no longer offer webcasting
> for its teleconferences, for budgetary reasons, but to provide 10 listen
> only ports for members of the public who wanted to listen in. (Webcasting of
> the in-person meetings are still provided.)
>
> I don't think the budgetary problems are imaginary or over. As you may know,
> some constituencies are having difficulty finding sources of funds to pay
> their annual DNSO assessments. There *has* been a public call for voluntary
> contributions, and Verisign set aside $100,000 in a matching fund as
> encouragement. The DNSO may be more well funded today than it was when it
> made its initial decision on webcasting, but its budget is still limited.
> The NC has been very willing to accept assistance from volunteers, as their
> use of these mp3 webcasts illustrates. (Contrast, for example, the NC's
> encouragement of these webcasts with the closed teleconferences that the
> ICANN Board still conducts.)
>
>        -- Bret
>
> Kristy McKee wrote:
> > ?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
>

- -- 
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 21:46:05 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

Yeah, right, Vany, like that had the slightest impression on me or anyone 
else in this business.  You guys are so silly thinking no one actually 
works with technology who participates within this group.  It's like you 
don't recognize we have all been video conferencing and web-casting since 
the mid 90s for a lot less than you paid the Berkman Center.

Do you or have you ever worked in this business?

The fact that you don't go through an Open-Bid process is clearly your 
first mistake.

~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 22:58:15 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Consensus... Definition? 

Dear Chuck,

While you raise many good points and certainly a good number of valid 
questions, the only definition of consensus that is meaningful in our current 
discussion is that which appears in the ICANN contracts:

1. "Consensus Policies" are those specifications or policies established 
based on a consensus among Internet stakeholders represented in the ICANN 
process, as demonstrated by (1) action of the ICANN Board of Directors 
establishing the specification or policy, (2) a recommendation, adopted by at 
least a two-thirds vote of the council of the ICANN Supporting Organization 
to which the matter is delegated, that the specification or policy should be 
established, and (3) a written report and supporting materials (which must 
include all substantive submissions to the Supporting Organization relating 
to the proposal) that (i) documents the extent of agreement and disagreement 
among impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to 
achieve adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely to be 
impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of reasoned support 
and opposition to the proposed specification or policy.

This definition describes two distinct votes, that of the Council and that of 
the Board -- no other votes are sanctioned within the context of the 
establishment of a consensus policy, other than to perhaps document the 
extent of agreement and disagreement among impacted groups.   

With regard to the contentious issue of transfers, our Names Council has 
still not determined that a policy should be established; they have only 
determined to postpone the issue until Montevideo.  Until such time as the 
Council of the DNSO agrees to take up the issue, and agrees upon a suitable 
methodology to allow for outreach and documentation of support/opposition and 
agreement/disagreement, we are at the mercy of registrars who may do what 
they will in the absence of a defined policy.

I am however encouraged by your comment that "all parties need to be willing 
to constructively participate in the process."  In light of the fact that 
Register.com, NSI Registrar and NameSecure have expressed their non-support 
of the recent Registrar Constituency Statement on Transfers, would you be 
willing to succinctly put forth the views of your firm regarding this 
constituency statement?

Thank you for your earlier well-considered comments on the consensus process.

Best regards,
Danny Younger

- --
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 23:09:59 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 9:52
> 
> Do you think that as part of bottom-up ICANN consensus
> development, that the NC and/or Constituencies and/or the GA should consider
> involving non-members, such as public interest organizations, assimilating
> and deliberating on their reports prior to making policy recommendations? If
> so, which part of the DNSO is best qualified to undertake this task?
> Also, do you think that the DNSO should develop and implement a policy for
> outreach to attract new participants into the bottom-up ICANN consensus
> development process for reasons of reducing the limitations of the currently
> small subset of participants? If so, how can we tackle this without funding?

on 8/16/01 11:57 AM, Gomes, Chuck at [email-masked] wrote:
> Yes, I do think that the DNSO should reach out to nonmembers as
> part of the consensus process.  The more stakeholders who are represented in
> a consensus process the more valid the consensus will be.  And I think it is
> accurate to conclude that the DNSO does not have adequate involvement by
> many stakeholders.  At the same time those unrepresented stakeholders may be
> impacted by the policy being considered.  I think that the consensus
> development process should include steps such as attempting to identify key
> stakeholders and then trying to involve any unrepresented stakeholders in
> the process.  If they are unresponsive, the efforts can be documented along
> with their unresponsiveness.  Then the NC, in its role of managing the
> consensus process and in its responsibility to determine whether a consensus
> has been reached, would be able to see that efforts were made to involve all
> stakeholders.  That in my opinion makes the consensus process stronger.

Chuck,

Not only the NC, also the Board. Thank you for making this post. Let's have
more or these, then we can define Outreach as part of the consensus
development process.

Regards,
Joanna

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:23:05 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] XTNS Launches New Domain Naming System

Good to know that you have been a long standing IETF member/participant,
Jeff, or did I misunderstand your post?

Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 12:00 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: [email-masked]'; Tim Langdell; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] XTNS Launches New Domain Naming System

Marilyn and all assembly members,

  Yes you should!  >;)  As one of many of those architects, it is counter
productive for lobbyist to use terms improperly to the rest of the
internet/stakeholder community.  However it should be known and
understood that most of the original architects no longer participate
in IETF efforts for various reasons, some of which have been briefly
discussed on this forum.

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I should let the IETF and others more knowledgeable than I respond... many
> of these terms were "coined" I believe by those who were the architects of
> the Internet...
>
> Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 6:13 PM
> To: Tim Langdell
> Cc: [email-masked]; Jefsey Morfin
> 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
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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 23:45:17 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] GA's .org and IDN Task Force members?

Dear Elisabeth,

I have been asked by Milton when we can submit a candidate for the .org Task 
Force.  As you know, we also need to submit a candidate for the IDN task 
Force.  Can you advise when the Secretariat might be able to arrange for 
these elections?  I realize that you have previously offered to make such 
arrangements, and I have noted that Phil Sheppard has approved our 
participation in the IDN TF:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00293.html

As the Council has voted not to start their election until the 8th of 
September, there should be time for the GA to conclude this matter without 
creating an undue burden on the Secretariat.

Please advise/thank you.

Danny

- --
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 21:50:52 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 09:46:05PM -0700, Kristy McKee wrote:
> Yeah, right, Vany, like that had the slightest impression on me or anyone 
> else in this business.  You guys are so silly thinking no one actually 
> works with technology who participates within this group.  It's like you 
> don't recognize we have all been video conferencing and web-casting since 
> the mid 90s for a lot less than you paid the Berkman Center.
> 
> Do you or have you ever worked in this business?
> 
> The fact that you don't go through an Open-Bid process is clearly your 
> first mistake.
> 
> ~k

So tell us, Kristy, how much you would bid to fly yourself and your
equipment to Montevideo, research the local connectivity issues,
interface with the local sites and the local providers, provide a
real-time scribe, and all the other services the Berkman center 
provides?

- -- 
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: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:39:47 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Call for nominations to two NC TF: IDN and dot org

GA Members,

The procedures and timeline for the DNSO GA election to designate 
its representative to two Names Council Task Forces: IDN and dot org
are published in:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GA-IDN-dotorgTF.html

The Call for nomination of candidates to represent the GA 
to two Names Council Task Forces: IDN and dot org is open now.

DNSO Secretariat
- ---

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

ICANN/DNSO

 DNSO GA election to designate its representatives to two Names Council Task
                    Forces: IDN and dot org, August 2001

17 August 2001

  I. The Names Council asked the General Assembly to designate its own
     representatives to two NC Task Forces: IDN and dot org.

     The charter for the NC IDN Task Force is described in the NC Business
     Plan http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001-02.NCbusinessplan.html

 II. The GA Chair asked the Secretariat to initiate an election process to
     designate the GA representatives to two Task Forces: IDN and dot org.

III. The Secretariat determined that this election will take place between
     17 August and 31 August 2001, with the following agenda:
        o Friday, 17 Aug - Call for nominations issued
        o Friday, 24 Aug - List of candidates closed
        o Friday, 24 Aug - Vote of the GA voting registry initiated
        o Friday, 31 Aug - Vote of the GA voting registry closed
        o Saturday, 1 Sep - Results calculated and announced

 IV. Nomination of candidates to represent the GA to two NC Task Forces: IDN
     and dot org:

          Open Friday, 17 Aug 2001, 10:00 UTC, 12:00 CET (Paris),
          Closed Friday, 24 Aug 2001, 10:00 UTC, 12:00 CET (Paris)

          The acceptance period closes on Friday, 24 Aug 2001 at 13:00
          UTC, 15:00 CET (Paris), 3 hours later than nominations.

          (For local time in other places see
          http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

             * Nominations must be sent by e-mail to
               [email-masked].

               Please use a Template for nomination:

                  1a. Full name of the nominee for IDN TF:
                  1b. E-mail address of the nominee for IDN TF:
                  1c. Full name of the nominee for dot org TF:
                  1d. E-mail address of the nominee for dot org TF:
                  2a. Full name of the nominator:
                  2b. E-mail address of the nominator:
                  2c. Type of GA membership:
                      (GA-ga subscriber, GA-announce subscriber,
                       GA-voting registry, Working Group subscriber,
                       or DNSO Constituency member)

               Each nominee will be requested for acceptance statement
               by the Secretariat.

             * Acceptances must be sent by e-mail to
               [email-masked].

               Please use a Template for acceptance:

                  1a. Full name of the nominee for IDN TF:
                  1b. E-mail address of the nominee for IDN TF:
                  or
                  1c. Full name of the nominee for dot org TF:
                  1d. E-mail address of the nominee for dot org TF:

                  1e. Background information about the nominee:
                  1f. Statement of the nominee's objectives
                      in the role as GA delegate to the NC UDRP TF:

             * Archives of nominations and acceptances received:

               http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc04

               On Friday, 24 Aug 2001 at 13:00 UTC, 15:00 CET (Paris),
               the ga-nominations list will be closed.

             * Nominees listed in order of acceptances (updated daily):
                  + xx Aug 2001, A

  V. A Watchdog Committee has been formed to police the nomination process
     to help detect and cure any instances of fraudulent activity in
     connection with the nomination process.

     Any instances of fraudulent nominations should be reported to this
     committee at the following email address: [email-masked], with a
     copy to the Names Council at [email-masked], This committee and the
     Names Council shall have the sole discretion as to how to deal with any
     such reported activity.

     Watchdog Committee list archive in
     http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-watchdog/Arc00/

     The members to the Watchdog Committee in 2001 election are:
        o Roberto Gaetano
        o Harald Alvestrand
        o Kent Crispin
        o Dany Vandromme
        o Alexander Svensson
        o Izumi Aizu

 VI. Election by the General Assembly to designate its representatives to
     two NC Task Forces: IDN and dot org.

     The Electorate will be those GA members who subscribed to the GA Voting
     Registry http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html.

          Open Friday, 24 Aug, 16:00 UTC, 18:00 CET (Paris),
          Closed Friday, 31 Aug, 16:00 UTC, 18:00 CET (Paris)

          (For local time in other places see
          http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

          The results are due no later than Saturday 1 Sep 2001, at
          22:00 UTC, 24:00 CET (Paris), and will be published in
          http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GA-IDN-dotorgTF-vote.html

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

                   Information from:  © 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: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:34:27 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

Chuck Gomes wrote:

>
>(Chuck) - Yes, I do think that the DNSO should reach out to nonmembers as
>part of the consensus process.  The more stakeholders who are represented 
>in
>a consensus process the more valid the consensus will be.  And I think it 
>is
>accurate to conclude that the DNSO does not have adequate involvement by
>many stakeholders.  At the same time those unrepresented stakeholders may 
>be
>impacted by the policy being considered.  I think that the consensus
>development process should include steps such as attempting to identify key
>stakeholders and then trying to involve any unrepresented stakeholders in
>the process.  If they are unresponsive, the efforts can be documented along
>with their unresponsiveness.  Then the NC, in its role of managing the
>consensus process and in its responsibility to determine whether a 
>consensus
>has been reached, would be able to see that efforts were made to involve 
>all
>stakeholders.  That in my opinion makes the consensus process stronger.
>

I agree that some effort has to be spent in order to bring more people in 
the DNSO.
Once upon a time we had WG-E: Chon managed to do a huge work, but 
unfortunately we never went past the stage of the analysis, and the only 
recommendation that has been ever put into practice was the induction 
session at the beginning of the ICANN meetings.
Hopefully, if we can manage to have a more multilingual approach, following 
the work of the SLT Task Force, we may have more interest from the 
non-english-speaking community.

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: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 07:58:24 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

I agree with adding the board, but I believe the board has a little
different role.  The board ultimately has to evaluate whether community
consensus has been reached, so they have the responsibility of making a
judgment of the evidence that is presented.  I am not sure that it is the
board's task to do the outreach (although that is okay), rather it is the
boards responsibility to make sure the SO's have done sufficient outreach.
This is an area though where they can have great influence.  If the evidence
supporting consensus is weak and/or incomplete, the board should send the
proposed policy back to the applicable SO for more work.  If they respond in
this way, that will more quickly motivate the SO's to improve their
consensus processes.

One of the trends going on now in the DNSO is to form small task forces or
committees instead of full fledged working groups.  Considering the problems
experienced with working groups to date, this is not surprising, but in my
opinion it is a very bad trend, especially if this is intended to be a
community-wide consensus development process unless the task forces and
committees can demonstrate that they have reached out and included the
broader community of stake holders.

There appear to be some who think that if the NC has a two-thirds vote it is
consensus.  This is bogus in my opinion if a full consensus process has not
preceded the NC vote.  According to the ICANN Bylaws it is the NC's role to
determine whether or not a consensus was reached, not to vote on what they
think consensus is with only minimal involvement from the larger community.
This kind of approach might work if the NC could truly be representative of
the total community but I do not think it is and it seems highly unlikely
that it could ever be representative of the global community.  Therefore, it
follows in my mind that the NC should function as the Bylaws say, as a
consensus management organization.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 11:10 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Roeland Meyer'; 'Sotiris Sotiropoulos'; ga
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 9:52
> 
> Do you think that as part of bottom-up ICANN consensus
> development, that the NC and/or Constituencies and/or the GA should
consider
> involving non-members, such as public interest organizations, assimilating
> and deliberating on their reports prior to making policy recommendations?
If
> so, which part of the DNSO is best qualified to undertake this task?
> Also, do you think that the DNSO should develop and implement a policy for
> outreach to attract new participants into the bottom-up ICANN consensus
> development process for reasons of reducing the limitations of the
currently
> small subset of participants? If so, how can we tackle this without
funding?

on 8/16/01 11:57 AM, Gomes, Chuck at [email-masked] wrote:
> Yes, I do think that the DNSO should reach out to nonmembers as
> part of the consensus process.  The more stakeholders who are represented
in
> a consensus process the more valid the consensus will be.  And I think it
is
> accurate to conclude that the DNSO does not have adequate involvement by
> many stakeholders.  At the same time those unrepresented stakeholders may
be
> impacted by the policy being considered.  I think that the consensus
> development process should include steps such as attempting to identify
key
> stakeholders and then trying to involve any unrepresented stakeholders in
> the process.  If they are unresponsive, the efforts can be documented
along
> with their unresponsiveness.  Then the NC, in its role of managing the
> consensus process and in its responsibility to determine whether a
consensus
> has been reached, would be able to see that efforts were made to involve
all
> stakeholders.  That in my opinion makes the consensus process stronger.

Chuck,

Not only the NC, also the Board. Thank you for making this post. Let's have
more or these, then we can define Outreach as part of the consensus
development process.

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:12:43 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Another committee of cronies?

Kristy wrote:

>
>[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

I believe this is the only reply addressing my question about alternative 
Internet standard making bodies.

The W3C is indeed a great example. In fact, there is a tight coordination 
between them and the IETF in terms of producing standards.
If you remember the beginning of the discussion about the standards, it was 
in relation to the issue of the PSO. Well, it is not by accident that IETF 
and W3C are among the 4 signatories of the PSO MoU, and I would say that 
they share much the same philosophy and approach.

As far as the IEEE, I am sincerely puzzled by your answer. Things might have 
changed in the recent past, but I am not under the impression that there is 
any IEEE standard that is relevant for the Internet.
Maybe you can point me to few of them?

>.......  We sent a visitor to the IETF's meeting held in Minnesota
>this year who recognized there were very few technical people present.

Aha, now I understand: you base your judgement of the IETF not on direct 
personal knowledge, but on what one person once reported about his/her 
attendance to one IETF meeting. It's all clear now!
I suggest you have a look at the list of participants in the various IETF 
meetings, it's published on the IETF Web site (http://www.ietf.org).

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: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:10:45 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Consensus... Definition? 

Danny,

I don't have any problem at all with the definition you cite from the ICANN
contracts.  But what I see happening is the following: there is a lot of
focus on items (1) and (2) of that definition and very little focus on
making (3) happen in a responsible way.  The votes in (1) by the board and
in (2) by the NC should be based on evidence from (3).  Read (3) carefully.
It's not easy to make (3) happen but I strongly believe it is critical.

Regarding your last suggestion, as part of the Registry, I cannot involve
myself with the NSI Registrar in any ways different than I would any other
registrar.  It would be inappropriate for me to try to communicate the views
of the NSI Registrar just as it would to communicate the views of any other
registrar.  As far as corporate views, I have to leave that to our corporate
policy office.  My role is to represent the VeriSign Registry with regard to
policy and compliance.

Chuck 

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 10:58 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Consensus... Definition? 

Dear Chuck,

While you raise many good points and certainly a good number of valid 
questions, the only definition of consensus that is meaningful in our
current 
discussion is that which appears in the ICANN contracts:

1. "Consensus Policies" are those specifications or policies established 
based on a consensus among Internet stakeholders represented in the ICANN 
process, as demonstrated by (1) action of the ICANN Board of Directors 
establishing the specification or policy, (2) a recommendation, adopted by
at 
least a two-thirds vote of the council of the ICANN Supporting Organization 
to which the matter is delegated, that the specification or policy should be

established, and (3) a written report and supporting materials (which must 
include all substantive submissions to the Supporting Organization relating 
to the proposal) that (i) documents the extent of agreement and disagreement

among impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to 
achieve adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely to be

impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of reasoned support 
and opposition to the proposed specification or policy.

This definition describes two distinct votes, that of the Council and that
of 
the Board -- no other votes are sanctioned within the context of the 
establishment of a consensus policy, other than to perhaps document the 
extent of agreement and disagreement among impacted groups.   

With regard to the contentious issue of transfers, our Names Council has 
still not determined that a policy should be established; they have only 
determined to postpone the issue until Montevideo.  Until such time as the 
Council of the DNSO agrees to take up the issue, and agrees upon a suitable 
methodology to allow for outreach and documentation of support/opposition
and 
agreement/disagreement, we are at the mercy of registrars who may do what 
they will in the absence of a defined policy.

I am however encouraged by your comment that "all parties need to be willing

to constructively participate in the process."  In light of the fact that 
Register.com, NSI Registrar and NameSecure have expressed their non-support 
of the recent Registrar Constituency Statement on Transfers, would you be 
willing to succinctly put forth the views of your firm regarding this 
constituency statement?

Thank you for your earlier well-considered comments on the consensus
process.

Best regards,
Danny Younger
- --
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: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:46:44 -0400
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

Kristy:

I think you forgot what I said one month ago about audio-videoconference and
the project I am perfoming right now in this issue.

Of course, I know there are cheaper ways to do right now webcasting and
audio/videoconference.

I know by myself because I had implemented twice (Melbourne and Stockholm) a
system named VRVS http://www.vrvs.org (created by Caltech and CERN)
With it you can make webcasting and audio/videoconference.  The system is
free of use and even we can setup Reflectors (I hope you know what is a
Reflector) in order to manage the audio and video streams.

Why, then I didn't make a webcasting through the VRVS of NC teleconferences?
 Simply, I don't live in USA.  Calls have a cost of $1.50 de minute from
Panama to USA.   So I have to use tools as dialpad in order to make a call
to the teleconference.
Using dialpad means that I cannot use the audio device for transmitting with
the VRVS client (because it is in use already by dialpad), then in my
personal case, it is needed two computers connected to the internet and
audio cables and adaptors.  The audio adaptors are easy and cheap to get.
 But, personally I only have one computer available and is the one that I
use to dial with dialpad.

If anyone in the GA is willing to volunteer to make the necesary tests wants
to offer their facilities for make a webcasting with VRVS, please contact me
and we can arrange tests and explain how it works.

And...by the way Kristy, Berkman Center make an nice job offering the
webcasting, realtime scribes, etc, in ICANN meetings.  However, in the last
ICANN meeting, they requested $50000.00 from which DNSO had to pay $12000.00
which was sponsored (thanks to the sponsor).  So, as you see, we cannot
afford to pay Berkman Center.

Go to a public bid:  Regardless how much does cost, in fact we cannot afford
it!    So, why go to a public bid if we cannot pay?

Donations and volunteers are always welcome (Bret, thank you for your
invaluable help with teleconference recording).

And...if I ever worked in this bussiness? I am working in this since 6
months ago searching a system that be affordable to make
audio-videoconference in the Internet.  I found it, I implemented twice with
sucess (VRVS).   Do you want to try it?  Let me know.
So, this answers another question:  yes, there are other systems cheaper.
However, Kristy, it seems you don't know that to make a webcasting
(realplayer, netmeeting, etc) you need a main server.  So, this means you
have to buy a computer, pay a licence for NT $$$ or use Linux , the software
server (Realplay costs $3000.00 the last time I visited their webpage), plus
someone that make all this instalation.    It could be all of this only
around $10000.00 at least (so imagine all the other costs).  Now, imagine
you do it through H323 over IP.  Only the MCU costs $$$$ (Polycom, Vcon,
Picture Tel, etc).  Well, you can use OpenMCU, for free...but be care that
the code is better developed than four months ago when I tested it and had
some problems with the code.

Ahh...well, too much for this issue.

The bottom line here is:   The  one who is willing to help, please help by
collaborating with concrete ideas that would lead to the constituencies to
save money instead of spend more money.
If there is anyone that wants to help me to webcast the NC teleconference
please contact me in order to coordinate the use of VRVS with other
facilities that you may have.

Best Regards
Vany

Kristy McKee wrote:

> Yeah, right, Vany, like that had the slightest impression on me or anyone
> else in this business.  You guys are so silly thinking no one actually
> works with technology who participates within this group.  It's like you
> don't recognize we have all been video conferencing and web-casting since
> the mid 90s for a lot less than you paid the Berkman Center.
>
> Do you or have you ever worked in this business?
>
> The fact that you don't go through an Open-Bid process is clearly your
> first mistake.
>
> ~k

- --
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #680
************************