Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #681
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, August 17 2001           Volume 01 : Number 681

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:59:54 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] XTNS Launches New Domain Naming System

- --On 16. august 2001 17:51 -0400 "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]> 
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...

the first definition of the DNS "domain" concepts in the RFC series were in 
RFC 882, by Paul Mockapetris, November 1983.

The first published definition (I believe) of the domain-like name 
structure is RFC 819, by Jon Postel and Zaw-sing Su, dated August 1982.

I do not believe that Jeff Williams has ever been a registered participant 
at a physical IETF meeting.

                Harald

- --
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 10:26:21 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

Chuck,
I couldn't agree more. We are on the same page.
Regards,
Joanna

on 8/17/01 7:58 AM, Gomes, Chuck at [email-masked] wrote:

> 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 09:32:49 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

So, Kent, that was a no to my question.

- --------

As I have written before, you should be working with the local providers 
for the service. Requiring your service provider to travel explains much of 
the trouble you have experienced.  It is too bad you do not trust the local 
communities at all.  The fact that you refuse to work with the general 
populous/local business communities helps me understand why so few people 
participate within the DNSO and why so few people hold stock in anything 
the DNSO or it's ICANN does.  Wow have you folks got a long way to go:  I 
hope you are paying attention to Joanna, Bill, Roeland, William, Myself, 
etc. as we are all trying to help you limp along with the idea that someday 
you will get up and walk, possibly run.

I am sure that if you come to Minneapolis, MN and have your meeting here, 
we will be happy to provide you with a response to your RFB in addition to 
passing the RFB around the community (since you apparently don't have the 
capability) so that you can choose between service providers; but not in 
Montevideo.  It is silliness and egoism that requires you to have tech's 
travel in that fashion, especially since the technology is so readily 
available.

With the information provided we would not be able to agree to work with 
your company for the following reasons:

1.  No RFB (Request for Bid)

2.  The Company is experiencing a financial crisis and therefore can not be 
expected to pay it's bills in a timely fashion if at all.

If I were you I would be looking to bring a financier and a fund-raiser on 
board immediately.

~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: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:42:27 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] Another committee of cronies?

>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,

...

> I am not under the impression that there is
>any IEEE standard that is relevant for the Internet.

None of this has anything to do with the issues concerning the rollout of
more TLDs which was the point of this thread.  I assume, then, that you
agree that ICANN has failed miserably in involving the relevant people in
their decision-making process.

The relevant people are

- -The potential domain buyers and users (the most important group)
- -The registries and registrars
- -Other groups with interest such as lawyers and big business (who largely
want to make sure nobody else can buy domain names).

Russ Smith

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:02:55 -0400
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] IcannWatch

Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
http://www.dnsga.org

The DNSGA is the author of the ALSC story published today at IcannWatch. 

I want to make sure that appropriate credit is given to the DNSGA for
this submission. 

The DNSGA submitted the below-mentioned story at 5:00 AM EST this
morning using its valid IcannWatch User Login Nickname and Password. 

It is not correct that certain IcannWatch representatives did not
publish the DNSGA's story or give the DNSGA credit for the story. 

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman 

- -- 

Recording Available of At-Large Study Committee Meeting Held at VeriSign 

A recording of the At-Large Study Committee (ALSC) outreach meeting held
13 August 2001, at VeriSign headquarters in Mountain View CA, is
available for review. Apparently, Worldcom had some "technical
difficulties" at the time of the live streaming audio webcast. ALSC
Executive Director Denise Michel has provided instructions concerning
reviewing the streaming audio at the following URL:

http://atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg00413.shtml 

DNSGA President and Chairman Derek Conant attended the ALSC outreach
meeting and he set forth his position concerning the A, B, and C options
and he disagreed with those options being considered by the ALSC as they
were presented at the meeting. 

At the meeting, Conant proposed that the ALSC should consider qualifying
organizations to represent the At-Large rather than attempting to invent
an international democratic voting authentication process. 

Questions concerning ALSC funding and staffing were raised by the ALSC.
There were also concerns raised during the meeting regarding
authenticating votes and the vulnerability of online voting
authentication systems and processes. 

Conant proposed that non-profit and for-profit organizations are better
positioned to fund and represent the At-Large, so long as ICANN
establishes policy and guidelines designed to qualify and regulate the
organizations. Conant proposed that with organizations representing the
At-Large, the applicant organizations and qualified organizations are
able to provide the necessary funding, staffing and resources necessary
to properly represent the At-Large. This will also prevent capture that
is possible with the contemplated democratic process that counts votes
when it is not clear where the votes are coming from or what the votes
represent. 

Conant also checked Jonathan Weinberg for making irresponsible
statements on the record during the meeting concerning the DNSGA and
Conant's efforts in the ICANN processes. 

For more information concerning the DNSGA's concept for the
restructuring of ICANN Supporting Organizations, you can visit the
following URL: 

http://dnsga.org/announcements/atlarge_5june01.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: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:04:16 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

Dear Peter,

During the NC's extensive deliberations yesterday on the Board Director
election, you, as a representative of the ccTLD Constituency, set the
criteria that any candidate running for this job should who be willing to
attend Montevideo and meet with the Constituencies face to face. As a direct
result of your astute arguments, the first round of vote cast on the
election was deferred until Saturday 8th September, decided by a clear
majority of the NC. If I understand you correctly, you then indicated that
if the reason for non-attendance was financial, then transportation could be
provided for candidates, but that a willingness to attend was essential. Let
me make a clear statement that I am willing to attend.

Notwithstanding the fact that I have not received any invitations to
participate in any Constituency meetings in Montevideo, I am eager to do so,
and more than happy to make the effort to comply with your requirement of
me. I do fully appreciate your concerns, and understand the particular
difficulties of using written questions, or teleconferences when liaising
with a diverse and multi-lingual membership. Prior to your statement, I saw
good, but not vital, reasons for my attendance. Subsequent to your statement
and the supporting vote of other NC members, it is obvious that any
candidate who does not attend will lose this election.

While not wishing to add to your burdens, and in order to not unfairly
disadvantage any of my fellow candidates, I am therefore requesting that you
make whatever ground, air and lodging arrangements may be necessary for all
of us to attend Montevideo.

My own position is this. I have family visiting from Europe until the 4th,
but could leave on the 5th/6th, which would allow me to attend the ccTLD
constituency meeting on the 7th at 2pm, or at your members convenience,
another time.

Regarding other Constituencies, at the time of writing, I have participated
in a 90 minute teleconference with the IPC, and submitted responses to
written questions posed off-list by the gTLD. I can only assume that any
other constituency requirements will be forthcoming, including the BC, from
whom I have not yet heard.

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 18:37:08 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] XTNS Launches New Domain Naming System

On 15:59 17/08/01, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
>>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...

A bit of History to pay their due to a few gone or still active pioneers 
who deserve it....

The first international public services sales of an ISO rooted host/child 
network structured name was to my memory by the BundesPost and Italcable in 
early falls 1978. The basic naming system was by Joe Rinde, the relations 
with the operators by Bob Trehin. I decided of the semantic and of the ISO 
usage which was finalized by Mike Rude a few months later on. I extended 
the system to the X121 numbering scheme (hosts, teletex, telex, exp.fax, 
exp.phone) of more than 40 countries from 1984 with the assistance of Neil 
Sullivan, Bob McCormick and Neil Sullivan and the coordination of Jack 
McDonnell (further on VP.EIA and founder of TNS Inc.). Mrs. Dominique 
Marchand - now with WoldCom in France - was in charge of the international 
naming coordination of this service covering at that time most of the 
international relations. The global naming service was under Ms. Vida 
Stafford. We shared in to the birth of national public services like 
Datapac in Canada, Transpac in France, PSS in the UK, Datex-P in Germany 
providing them their first international liaison with our name or the X121 
standard we contribudted to actively in CCITT Group VII and III US 
delegation under Earl Barberly from the State Departement.

>the first definition of the DNS "domain" concepts in the RFC series were 
>in RFC 882, by Paul Mockapetris, November 1983. The first published 
>definition (I believe) of the domain-like name structure is RFC 819, by 
>Jon Postel and Zaw-sing Su, dated August 1982.

We interfaced the ESA (European Space Ageecy) in various places, the 
Honeywell system from Vesailles (for the development of ADDA by Jacques 
Ichbia), later the Internet (ARPA) through UK and several US universities 
providing a coherent naming into ARPA - I am not sure of the date of the 
first ARPAxxxxxx names we validated. At that time our President was Bob 
Harcharick who left to create MCI Mail hiring Vint Cerf among others.

Hello, to any of them or any one I would have forgotten who would be on 
this ML!

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

Danny,

I would encourage the NC not to fund travel to F2F meetings for anyone,
even if you happen to be one that benefits from such this time around.

With 4 meetings a year, 3 of which cost in the thousands for most to
attend, I suggest that the NC and other Constituencies focus on having
decisions made on the mailing lists and teleconferences.

The IETF has a long history, like 20 years, of not making decisions at F2F
meetings. Instead, all decisions are made via mailing lists and phone
conferences. The F2F meetings are for doing work, not decision making.

It will be increasingly difficult to justify who gets travel expenses and
who does not; all the while increasing the operating costs of the DNSO
which is something we need to keep at a minimum.

We need to encourage everyone to use the facilities of the Internet and
PSTN to allow everyone a voice, not just those that attend the F2F
meetings.

best regards,

- -rick

Rick Wesson
CTO Registrars Constituency

On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Joanna Lane wrote:

> Dear Peter,
>
> During the NC's extensive deliberations yesterday on the Board Director
> election, you, as a representative of the ccTLD Constituency, set the
> criteria that any candidate running for this job should who be willing to
> attend Montevideo and meet with the Constituencies face to face. As a direct
> result of your astute arguments, the first round of vote cast on the
> election was deferred until Saturday 8th September, decided by a clear
> majority of the NC. If I understand you correctly, you then indicated that
> if the reason for non-attendance was financial, then transportation could be
> provided for candidates, but that a willingness to attend was essential. Let
> me make a clear statement that I am willing to attend.
>
> Notwithstanding the fact that I have not received any invitations to
> participate in any Constituency meetings in Montevideo, I am eager to do so,
> and more than happy to make the effort to comply with your requirement of
> me. I do fully appreciate your concerns, and understand the particular
> difficulties of using written questions, or teleconferences when liaising
> with a diverse and multi-lingual membership. Prior to your statement, I saw
> good, but not vital, reasons for my attendance. Subsequent to your statement
> and the supporting vote of other NC members, it is obvious that any
> candidate who does not attend will lose this election.
>
> While not wishing to add to your burdens, and in order to not unfairly
> disadvantage any of my fellow candidates, I am therefore requesting that you
> make whatever ground, air and lodging arrangements may be necessary for all
> of us to attend Montevideo.
>
> My own position is this. I have family visiting from Europe until the 4th,
> but could leave on the 5th/6th, which would allow me to attend the ccTLD
> constituency meeting on the 7th at 2pm, or at your members convenience,
> another time.
>
> Regarding other Constituencies, at the time of writing, I have participated
> in a 90 minute teleconference with the IPC, and submitted responses to
> written questions posed off-list by the gTLD. I can only assume that any
> other constituency requirements will be forthcoming, including the BC, from
> whom I have not yet heard.
>
> 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
>

- --
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 12:49:22 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

Dear Marilyn,

On a point of clarification, during yesterday's teleconference, I understood
you to say that you would be contacting Board Candidates with a view to
arranging a Teleconference with the BC, and/or submitting written questions
in due course. If that is correct, when might we expect this to be
forthcoming? 

I am also attaching a copy of a related post, just posted to the GA list,
which is self explanatory, and should also have been copied to my fellow
candidates.

Regards,
Joanna

on 8/17/01 12:04 PM, Joanna Lane at [email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Peter,
> 
> During the NC's extensive deliberations yesterday on the Board Director
> election, you, as a representative of the ccTLD Constituency, set the
> criteria that any candidate running for this job should who be willing to
> attend Montevideo and meet with the Constituencies face to face. As a direct
> result of your astute arguments, the first round of vote cast on the
> election was deferred until Saturday 8th September, decided by a clear
> majority of the NC. If I understand you correctly, you then indicated that
> if the reason for non-attendance was financial, then transportation could be
> provided for candidates, but that a willingness to attend was essential. Let
> me make a clear statement that I am willing to attend.
> 
> Notwithstanding the fact that I have not received any invitations to
> participate in any Constituency meetings in Montevideo, I am eager to do so,
> and more than happy to make the effort to comply with your requirement of
> me. I do fully appreciate your concerns, and understand the particular
> difficulties of using written questions, or teleconferences when liaising
> with a diverse and multi-lingual membership. Prior to your statement, I saw
> good, but not vital, reasons for my attendance. Subsequent to your statement
> and the supporting vote of other NC members, it is obvious that any
> candidate who does not attend will lose this election.
> 
> While not wishing to add to your burdens, and in order to not unfairly
> disadvantage any of my fellow candidates, I am therefore requesting that you
> make whatever ground, air and lodging arrangements may be necessary for all
> of us to attend Montevideo.
> 
> My own position is this. I have family visiting from Europe until the 4th,
> but could leave on the 5th/6th, which would allow me to attend the ccTLD
> constituency meeting on the 7th at 2pm, or at your members convenience,
> another time.
> 
> Regarding other Constituencies, at the time of writing, I have participated
> in a 90 minute teleconference with the IPC, and submitted responses to
> written questions posed off-list by the gTLD. I can only assume that any
> other constituency requirements will be forthcoming, including the BC, from
> whom I have not yet heard.
> 
> 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 12:56:40 -0400
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] IcannWatch

The significant matter I was pointing out is that the DNSGA wrote a
similar story and submitted it to IcannWatch before Michael Froomkin
decided to publish your story.  The DNSGA story should have been
published first, whereas, IcannWatch purports to be a fair reporting
organization and forum concerning matters related to the ICANN
processes.  It is not correct that such an organization give the
appearance of organized censorship concerning matters related to the
ICANN processes, as in this case.  

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Mikael Pawlo wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Derek Conant wrote:
> > Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
> > http://www.dnsga.org
> > The DNSGA is the author of the ALSC story published today at IcannWatch.
> 
> No, that is not correct. I am the author, since I submitted the story
> published by ICANNwatch ( http://www.icannwatch.com/article.php?sid=300 ).
> If you read the story you see that it is quite different from your
> submission.
> 
> > I want to make sure that appropriate credit is given to the DNSGA for
> > this submission.
> 
> Approriate credit is already given.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Mikael Pawlo
- --
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 12:59:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IcannWatch

[Apologies for the off-topic post, which will be my last on this thread.]

We received multiple independent submissions of items regarding
this event, as is sometimes the case.  The way our system works, there is
no one other than the editors who can read items in the unpublished queue,
which is why when multiple submissions happen they must be independent
unless the submitters are somehow tipped off by an editor. 

We don't publish everything we are sent, and exercise our editorial
judgment as to which contributions to use on the 'front page', especially
when there is more than one on the same topic.  We don't exercise the same
control over the comments, which appear without our intermediation.

Note also the ICANNWatch FAQ: <a
href="http://www.icannwatch.org/essays/faq.htm#_1_33">Why didn't you post
my brilliant submission?</a>.

Readers on this list interested in comparing the two, quite different,
submissions at issue are invited to see them at
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=300&mode=nested&order=0&thold=0

On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Derek Conant wrote:

> Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
> http://www.dnsga.org
> 
> The DNSGA is the author of the ALSC story published today at IcannWatch. 
> 
> I want to make sure that appropriate credit is given to the DNSGA for
> this submission. 
> 
> The DNSGA submitted the below-mentioned story at 5:00 AM EST this
> morning using its valid IcannWatch User Login Nickname and Password. 
> 
> It is not correct that certain IcannWatch representatives did not
> publish the DNSGA's story or give the DNSGA credit for the story. 
> 
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman 
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                     -->It's very hot here.<--

- --
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 12:51:42 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IcannWatch

         Um . . . Mikael Pawlo and Derek Conant each sent in a story today 
to ICANNWatch about the recent ALSC meeting.  The two stories are actually 
quite different, and one of the editors posted the one Mikael sent 
in.  FWIW, you can read both of them at 
<http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=300&mode=nested&order=0> (we 
posted Mikael's story, and Derek sent his in as a comment on Mikael's).

Jonathan Weinberg
[email-masked]

At 12:02 PM 8/17/2001 -0400, Derek Conant wrote:
>Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
>http://www.dnsga.org
>
>The DNSGA is the author of the ALSC story published today at IcannWatch.
>
>I want to make sure that appropriate credit is given to the DNSGA for
>this submission.
>
>The DNSGA submitted the below-mentioned story at 5:00 AM EST this
>morning using its valid IcannWatch User Login Nickname and Password.
>
>It is not correct that certain IcannWatch representatives did not
>publish the DNSGA's story or give the DNSGA credit for the story.
>
>Derek Conant
>DNSGA President and Chairman

- --
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 19:14:52 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

Dear Peter,
I obviously support this in the same terms as Joana, provided Paul Kahn and 
Eric Jonvel also do. I suppose that Amadeu's trip will be footed by the 
ICANN as BoD Members.

On 18:04 17/08/01, Joanna Lane said:
>While not wishing to add to your burdens, and in order to not unfairly
>disadvantage any of my fellow candidates, I am therefore requesting that you
>make whatever ground, air and lodging arrangements may be necessary for all
>of us to attend Montevideo.
>
>My own position is this.

<snip>

>  which would allow me to attend the ccTLD
>constituency meeting on the 7th at 2pm, or at your members convenience,
>another time.
>
>Regarding other Constituencies, at the time of writing, I have participated
>in a 90 minute teleconference with the IPC, and submitted responses to
>written questions posed off-list by the gTLD. I can only assume that any
>other constituency requirements will be forthcoming, including the BC, from
>whom I have not yet heard.

BC has asked the Members to address personal comments to the NC DNSO/BC 
Members quoting a few of the Q/A we addressed on the GA. They intend to 
take a decision by Aug 28th in a conference all.  As the only candidate 
from the BC I have asked Philip Sheppard and the BC NC Representative that 
the Secretariat copies the Candidates.

As a personal general comment, I acknowledge the competence of Joana, 
Amadeu and Paul and I personally know Eric. All of them would be different 
style but good Directors. I think this election should not so much be a 
competition but a common opportunity to seriously consider what is to be 
changed or improved and how in an ICANN now a grown-up organization.

Jefsey Morfin

- --
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 14:18:45 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Another committee of cronies?

As a Senior Member of the IEEE, I must answer the portion of the comment
that relates to IEEE.

While this may not relate directly "policy-wise" to Internet, it
certainly relates technically.

The IEEE manages the 802.xxx standards, the ethernet system that is
actually wsed in modt cases to transmit IP packets over LANs, and, in
some cases WANs.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Roberto
Gaetano
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 8:13 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [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

- --
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 11:45:52 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IcannWatch

Friday, Friday, August 17, 2001, 9:02:55 AM, Derek Conant wrote:

> Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
> http://www.dnsga.org

> The DNSGA is the author of the ALSC story published today at IcannWatch. 

> I want to make sure that appropriate credit is given to the DNSGA for
> this submission. 

> The DNSGA submitted the below-mentioned story at 5:00 AM EST this
> morning using its valid IcannWatch User Login Nickname and Password. 

> It is not correct that certain IcannWatch representatives did not
> publish the DNSGA's story or give the DNSGA credit for the story. 

> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman 

Wrong, as usual

"What really happened"
http://www.icannwatch.com/comments.php?op=showreply&tid=1572&sid=300&pid=1564&mode=thread&order=0&thold=#1572

Maybe Derek needs to read:
http://www.icannwatch.org/essays/faq.htm#_1_33
"Why didn't you post my brilliant submission?"

Maybe Derek's one man "general assembly" needs to get some perspective.

- -- 
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: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:51:42 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] IcannWatch

Friday, Friday, August 17, 2001, 9:56:40 AM, Derek Conant wrote:

> The significant matter I was pointing out is that the DNSGA wrote a
> similar story and submitted it to IcannWatch before Michael Froomkin
> decided to publish your story.  The DNSGA story should have been
> published first, whereas, IcannWatch purports to be a fair reporting
> organization and forum concerning matters related to the ICANN
> processes.  It is not correct that such an organization give the
> appearance of organized censorship concerning matters related to the
> ICANN processes, as in this case.  

More accurately, ICANNWatch is a private operation, which uses its
discretion on publishing stories.  They do not, nor should they,
publish every submission.

Your story was not really worth publishing, in my opinion, and I agree
with their decision not to publish it.  It was very self serving, and
not the kind of article that ICANNWatch normally accepts.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #681
************************