Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #699
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, August 25 2001          Volume 01 : Number 699

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

Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:55:54 +0200
From: "eric jonvel" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] french candidate Eric Jonvel  - ICANN meeting in Montevideo

Jeff,

I'm wondering if you are thinking that
i'm looking for a free trip.
If yes, please explain why .

The idea for Montevideo was to test
the election legacy.
Can you consider that any small compagny is offering
more when they decide to put someone in the decision
staff?

What I thought, is that if there is one candidate in
MonteVideo, all have to be too like
TV does when election are democratic.

Regards,
Eric Jonvel.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
To: "eric Jonvel" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "ga ml" <[email-masked]>; "'Business Constituency Secretariat'"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] french candidate Eric Jonvel - ICANN meeting in Montevideo

> Eric and all assembly members,
>
>   Nice to know that you are "Ready" for someone to provide you
> funding to go to Montevideo!  But it seems to me that you are a
> bit late....  I am "Ready" to win the Powerball Lottery, but it's
> not likely to happen.  In other words you needed to get busy
> on acquiring funding for attending the Montevideo meeting
> over a month ago.  In fact, you should be working on gaining
> funding now for the next ICANN Meeting after Montevideo
> now!
>
> eric Jonvel wrote:
>
> > To all.
> >
> > I'm Eric Jonvel, the 32y old french IT manager
> > running for the next election.
> >
> > Even if give 2 hours a day for read your mail,
> > I should be the only one working
> > for a private company as I'm unable to have
> > the same opportunities than you for sending mail.
> >
> > To resume my profil, I have to stand on the fact
> > I'm on the Internet since 1995 ( begin of it in France)
> > and studing DNS from the same date.
> > In the same time, one the other french candidate
> > seems yet looking for how manage a Name server.
> >
> > In order to win time, It will be nice if you could
> > post your question to [email-masked] which is the
> > mail opened for this.
> >
> > I'm also looking for sponsoring my travel to montevideo.
> > If one have a proposal, I'm ready .
> >
> > Regards,
> > Eric Jonvel.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "Derek Conant" <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>; "ga ml" <[email-masked]>; "'Business
> > Constituency Secretariat'" <[email-masked]>; "Danny Younger"
> > <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 8:13 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] FW: ICANN meeting in Montevideo
> >
> > Dear All Concerned,
> >
> > What this post really does is exemplify all of the problems with funding
and
> > representation.
> >
> > Derek as you well know we must make some concessions in order to obtain
> > funding.
> > Openness and transparency are what keep it right. If anyone around here
> > wears her
> > heart on her sleeve for all the world to see it is Joanna.  So if there
> > appears
> > some non-profit conflict, so be it, we can see how she acts not how it
may
> > look.
> >
> > I mention this not in passing, but in that, it cuts across all borders
> > socio-economic, cultural and multilingual, National and age.
> >
> > Doesn't this argument also go to the UDRP and IP lawyer folks and the
> > digital
> > divide.
> >
> > We have to get funded somewhere so we must accept that the only real
> > requirement
> > is transparency and public criticism of sources and the integrity of
> > individuals.
> > I like the recent post that reminded us that the press will be in
Montevido.
> > I
> > only hope that these people have a thick of enough hide to handle the
> > onslaught of
> > criticism.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > Derek Conant wrote:
> >
> > > >  Good luck with the election.
> > > >
> > > >Sincerely,
> > > >Kristi Plähn-Gjersvold
> > > >Grants Manager, Benton Foundation
> > >
> > > It appeared that you solicited the Benton Foundation on behalf of the
> > > DNSO and ICANN for your Board candidacy.  Or, was your thinking that
you
> > > were going to represent the Benton Foundation if they funded your trip
> > > to Montevideo?
> > >
> > > My understanding is that the Benton Foundation has not been following
> > > this process.  If your thinking was that your were going to represent
> > > your own views, why then expect the Benton Foundation to support you
and
> > > fund you?
> > > Money, grants and funding are disappearing in today's troubled economy
> > > and the economy is probably going to get a whole lot worse before it
> > > begins to get better.
> > >
> > > I gather from your opposition to my posts concerning APOs and
> > > restructuring the DNSO
> > > (http://dnsga.org/announcements/atlarge_5june01.html), that you
support
> > > counting everyone's votes and that you are against enterprise
> > > organizations representing stake holders, interested parties and the
> > > At-Large.
> > >
> > > Money is scarce.  Who is going to fund your point of view and
expenses?
> > > How are you going to demonstrate that you have the funding, staff and
> > > necessary resources to adequately represent the GA constituency?  If
you
> > > are elected, how can you properly represent your constituency without
> > > money for your time and expenses?  It takes money to properly compile
> > > and present information concerning a constituency's position.
> > >
> > > It takes money.  There is no money with your way of thinking.  Most
> > > organizations (non-profit, etc.) have experienced shrinking budgets
for
> > > grants and funding and they have no money to spare.
> > >
> > >
> > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > >
> > > On 12 May 2001 ICANN CEO Stuart Lynn made the following comment
> > > concerning ICANN funding DNSO expenses:
> > >
> > > "As I understand it, ICANN's budgets are not used for covering SO
> > > expenses.  This does not single out the DNSO or the GA, but applies
> > > across the all SO's. Perhaps your opinion is that this should change,
> > > and the budget should be adapted to accommodate certain kinds of SO
> > > expenses.  In which case, that is a matter to be pursued through
> > > process, ultimately requiring Board approval. We cannot make
exceptions
> > > on an ad hoc basis and be fair to all constituencies."
> > >
> > > "If the acceptance of a volunteer position depended upon travel for
> > > which I have no sources of support, I would most certainly check in
> > > advance as to what is the relevant policy before agreeing to accept."
> > >
> > > =-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > >
> > > It may be the case that the state of the world's economy demands that
> > > standards and policy be derived from market driven forces.  It may be
> > > the case that it will be ICANN's responsibility to weigh and control
> > > standards and policy that are derived from market driven forces.
> > > Because of competition, market driven forces will advance the creation
> > > of new technology and efficient processes, protect consumer privacy
and
> > > information, protect the integrity of the Domain Name System (DNS) and
> > > market driven forces will prevent the system from being captured.
> > >
> > > It takes money to properly compile and present information concerning
> > > competition and new technology.  An organization with money and
> > > resources that can properly compile and present information for their
> > > constituency should be allowed to compete for the ICANN Board's
> > > attention and votes.
> > >
> > > The matter of organizations being qualified to present information to
> > > the ICANN Board and being qualified to vote on ICANN agenda,
concerning
> > > the integrity of the DNS and the development of standards and policy,
> > > should be at the very same level and priority as that used in
assessing
> > > New TLD Registry Applications and Accredited Registrar Applications
for
> > > the integrity of the DNS.
> > >
> > > We need to change our way of thinking because what we are doing now is
> > > not working.
> > >
> > > Derek Conant
> > > DNSGA President and Chairman
> > >
> > > Telephone:  (202) 801-0158
> > > Facsimile:  (202) 234-0685
> > > E-mail:  [email-masked]
> > >
> > > Joanna Lane wrote:
> > > >
> > > > on 8/22/01 12:57 PM, Derek Conant at [email-masked] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Was it appropriate to solicit funding on behalf of the DNSO GA
without
> > > > > formal authorization or permission from the DNSO or ICANN?
> > > >
> > > > I have never professed to speak for DNSO GA and do not now, neither
have
> > I
> > > > solicited funds on behalf of the DNSO GA from anybody.
> > > >
> > > > There are a lot of generalizations being bandied about in this
> > discussion
> > > > about funding of Board candidates for Montevideo. Some of these are
> > missing
> > > > the salient points.
> > > >
> > > > What is being overlooked is that on this particular occasion, the
> > election
> > > > of a Board Director coincides with a physical meeting of those
judging
> > the
> > > > merits of the candidates. That is an unusual situation. None of
those
> > > > participating in this vote have themselves been subjected to the
> > requirement
> > > > to meet f2f with their electorate in advance of their election or
> > > > appointment without an election, nor to the best of my knowledge,
are
> > any NC
> > > > representatives funding their own travel expenses to Montevideo, and
yet
> > > > they see fit to raise it as an issue with candidates for the current
> > > > election. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > > >
> > > > It has not been the practice or the custom for nominees to
participate
> > in a
> > > > physical meeting with their electorate prior to election, for any
> > position
> > > > as Director, member of the NC, Task Forces, GA Chair, or other
elected
> > > > official of ICANN DNSO. And it wasn't an issue under discussion in
this
> > > > election, until after the election itself commenced. This could be
> > regarded
> > > > as attempts to change the rules of the election after it has started
> > > > (whether or not it is a good or bad thing). Therefore, candidates in
> > this
> > > > election could not have been expected to think that physical
attendance
> > > > would be a requirement to qualify, and in fact, it is not.
Allegations
> > now
> > > > being made that candidates should not have accepted nomination if
they
> > were
> > > > not prepared to attend, are completely unfounded. If you want to
change
> > the
> > > > rules, you may do so by consensus, but not retroactively by fiat. If
you
> > > > allow any organization to impose rules and regulations in this way,
> > there is
> > > > no end to abuse, hence the importance of concrete consensus building
> > > > procedures to arrive at fair election rules for all affected
> > stakeholders,
> > > > something I myself have advocated very strongly since day one, and
is
> > > > supported by calls for the same by the ALSC and ICANN Board, amongst
> > others.
> > > > Attendance of Board candidates at ICANN meetings has not been
formally
> > > > adopted in any rules, and is therefore outside the scope of any
possible
> > > > criteria that can be set by the NC in their deliberations to judge
> > > > integrity, willingness or interest of any candidate.
> > > >
> > > > Nevertheless, the NC, at the 11th hour, has in its wisdom, taken the
> > > > position that the election should not take place without giving
> > candidates
> > > > the opportunity to meet with that part of the electorate that will
be in
> > > > attendance in Montevideo, and in particular, the ccTLD constituency
> > > > representatives who have difficulty communicating with members by
other
> > > > means. It could therefore be viewed that new criteria set for this
> > election
> > > > by one constituency, the ccTLDs, supported by other constituencies,
has
> > been
> > > > introduced without proper advance notice having been given to
affected
> > > > stakeholders who have endorsed candidates already, and not
necessarily
> > those
> > > > who were not planning to attend. It may or may not be that those
> > endorsers
> > > > would have rather nominated an alternative candidate. We will never
know
> > > > simply because the goal posts have moved during the election.
> > > >
> > > > The notice given to candidates by the NC Teleconference was well
past
> > any
> > > > reasonable notice period that would normally be required for a
person to
> > > > make themselves available. Now, what is required is to abandon prior
> > > > committments and fly half way round the world for pro bono work, and
at
> > > > personal expense, since those who have called for the interview are
not
> > > > willing to pay expenses.
> > > >
> > > > I was aware that ICANN was a not for profit organization, but I did
not
> > > > think it was a charity, and for a number of years I have personally
> > > > established a policy of charitable giving only to children in need
and
> > > > regret that ICANN does not qualify. As far as pro bono work, I have
> > given
> > > > the major portion of my time for many months to DNSO at the expense
of
> > other
> > > > pro bono and my own business work that I would normally be doing,
and
> > have
> > > > to draw the line at out of pocket expenses amounting to thousands of
> > > > dollars, whether or not I can afford it.
> > > >
> > > > Also, it is not my intention to approach my supporters for funding
as
> > that
> > > > discourages those who may now be deliberating on adding their name
in
> > > > support, thinking that if they do so, they will be hit for a
> > contribution.
> > > > Endorsements of individuals without a corporate paymaster should not
> > come
> > > > with a price tag that those with corporate funding do not have to
> > impose.
> > > >
> > > > Those organizations that do fund participants have either not
replied to
> > > > inquiries made since this issue arose, or have responded negatively.
It
> > has
> > > > already been mentioned that it is too late to make such
applications.
> > > >
> > > > I sense this is a sports game, whereby, having already competed as
an
> > > > unsponsored woman in a largely sponsored man's club and qualified as
a
> > > > player, run round the field a few times and scored a few points,
now, 5
> > > > minutes before time, the home base has been moved to a few thousand
> > miles
> > > > away, way out of sight......
> > > >
> > > > In any developing organization, obviously the goal posts will move,
but
> > it
> > > > is worth noting that the results of moving these specific goal posts
at
> > this
> > > > particular moment in time *does* discriminate against those that
seek to
> > > > represent the non-represented, (however coincidental that may be).
By
> > > > default, this situation favors those candidates with business
interests
> > that
> > > > are already well represented at all levels, including the Board, and
at
> > a
> > > > time when even the ALSC is calling for a more diverse and balanced
> > > > representation within this organization.
> > > >
> > > > Is it any wonder that DNSO has begun to splinter off real talent,
namely
> > > > ccTLDs and now possibly NCDNHC. It is this moving of the goal posts,
> > > > backward and forward, that has frustrated genuine participation in
the
> > > > process, and prevented real improvements being made.
> > > >
> > > > Too bad this election is an illusion of fair play, rather than
evidence
> > of
> > > > it. I will, nevertheless, continue to strive and speak out for
higher
> > > > standards, by whatever means possible. As I said in my candidate
> > statement,
> > > > this is a vote for conscience. You do not need me in Montevideo to
meet
> > your
> > > > own. History will be the judge of your vote.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Joanna
> > > >
> > > > The URLs for Best Practices: DNSO Citation:
> > > > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
> > > > (Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
> > > > Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
> > > > Part I:
> > > > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
> > > > Part II:
> > > > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
> > > > (Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
> > > > Reader, which is available for free down load at
> > > > http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > 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: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:13:52 -0400
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: ICANN meeting in Montevideo

Jefsey:

Though I would like that always I and others find an sponsor or other people
contact me for offer me sponsorship regardless if it is from inside or outside
ICANN, I am complaining if I find it or not, although I would like to not have
made such expense.  I really would like to have found an sponsor for travel to
Stockholm, as in the past I have aprooved for travel grants, found kind sponsors
and that Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama and myself appreciate
a lot their generosity.

Anyway, there's no difference between me and other NC members because regardless
where the money comes, no money comes from ICANN neither DNSO to pay their travel
expenses.  There will be the day when there are NC members that their companies
will not pay for them.  If they decide to go anyway, even if he will owe the live
to the bank, is their bussiness at it was my bussiness to do so for Stockholm
meeting.

I just exposed my personal story and extrapolated it to the actual situation in
order to show you and others, that there's no such thing as GA candidates and NC
candidates.   That you and others are the ones who has created such difference
based on economical contraints when, in fact, everybody has economical contraints
in certain moments.

As I said previously, I would like that DNSO can apply and in fact gets travel
grants for DNSO candidate activities.  If there is a chance to do so, it would be
so.

All, constituencies, NC, GA are members of DNSO.  Instead of creating in the minds
of other members differences that doesn't exists, what we have to do all together
search factible solutions for a next time, specially for those that sadly their
organisations and/or themselves cannot afford such expenses when a similar
situation happens in the future.

Best Regards
Vany

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Vany,
> this only shows how absurdly ill managed is the ICANN Corporation.
> Do you think that any other Corporation would stand in business five
> minutes in having their contractors - what are the SOs - asked to pay
> for providing it services?
>
> I think your NC teleconferencing budget is here: ask the operators to
> pay you for talking in front of their camera :-)  You will tell them it is
> normal ICANN practice.
>
> The ICANN has to decide once for all if it is either:
>
> -  a Corporation conducting business in order to cover its budget and
>     trying to stabilize and protect its revenues in a contractual way as
>     does any corporation, choosing its strategy and objective accordingly.
>     In that case it is totally subject to competition and it is to drastically
>     review its policy in order to pay for what it uses, or to go down.
>
>     So, I want to see a clear plan covering all the expenses incurred by
>     the ICANN - including the payment of every travel and expense it
>     exposes its contractors and helpers to. When you do not have the
>     money for something, you do not spend it. Period.
>
>     I am in NO mood to pay for the ICANN mismanagement. I am in no
>     mood to subsidize GIP members with my family money. Nor US
>     DoC interests. I already my my French taxes. I am also in NO
>     mood to support such a biased mismanagement which hurts my
>     interests thought the ICP-3 monopolistic attitude. I fully support
>     any competitor who will provide me better, more stable, more
>     secure, more professional, more open services, more cooperative
>     services. If I was not I would be a fool.
>
> -  or a non profit association of stake holding Members represented
>     through their constituencies, with common good as an objective with
>     a budget covered by Members in proportion to the turn-over in the
>     Internet area and participating into the cost of the services they
>     obtain from he ICANN.
>
>     Such an endeavor being seriously controlled by these Members to
>     avoid any mission creep, and being strictly cost limited to the
>     Membership fees and contributions.
>
> I would consider as unstabilizing any help a Foundation might bring to
> anyone to pay for something owed by the ICANN. I fully support that
> a Foundation might pay for Joop attending the Montevideo meeting where
> he wants to propose a new project. Or developing ccTLD being helped
> as ccTLDs are either customers or Members of the ICANN. I fully
> support that my own Foundation spends a very few money on some
> ICANN oriented projects.
>
> But, after consideration, I fully disapprove - it was mistake of mine to
> fall into that trap and I apologize and correct it here - to ask for my own
> travel to Montevideo. No BoD Member, no NC Member, no candidate,
> no employee, no contractor should ever pay for any ICANN related
> expense. Never.
>
> I even say that every incurred expense of that kind since the start of
> the ICANN should be listed by present and former BoD, NC Members,
> employees and Candidates and be paid back by the ICANN. I am
> extremely serious about this. I fully state that the current practice is
> dishonest.
>
> Let be clear, it is not only ethically dishonest. It is also a bad
> practice against the Global Internet Community interest. It only favors
> lobbying professionalism over professional dedication, network
> service management competence and user interest protection. This
> destabilizes the network and lead to a de facto monopolistic situation.
> This will only resolve through the confusion of the rise of competitors
> to the ICANN or international investigation or disinterest.
>
> That ICANN has not the money for its expenses is either due to poorly
> computed rates because of an ill understanding of what competition
> is, or due to too many totally out of scope issues. IMHO both are true.
> This boils down to incompetence and mission creep.
>
> When I learn what you say, there is not a need for a change. There
> is an obligation for a stop. I am sorry, Vany, for all that. I apologize for
> having smiled at your efforts to get subsidies for you travels I took for
> political lobbying. You deserve all my/our respect. But you have to stop.
>
> To conclude I fully understand now why only 2 trips as paid for. Over 2,
> if the project was good, it should have be taken, and be now paid, by
> the ICANN. It seems that people in Salzburg are wiser than in MdR.
>
> Now, we have many US lawyers here:
>
> - if in an US citizen, could have Vany tax deducted the cost of her
>    travels?
> - how do you qualify the fact for a corporation to pay for the expenses
>    of a person on a board in another company it does business with?
>
> Jefsey
>
> On 15:01 24/08/01, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales said:
> >Jefsey and all:
> >
> >There's no such GA candidates nor NC candidates, etc.    There is simply
> >DNSO candidates!!!  If you begin to clasify candidates in such a way that you
> >and others are doing, you are simply trying that other's see this process as
> >vicious.   And it is not.
> >
> >As far as I know all candidates was nominated by GA members anyway,  and
> >none of
> >such nomineers was NC members.
> >
> >No NC member is funded by ICANN funds neither DNSO funds to travel to ICANN
> >meetings.
> >
> >And, it can happen that being an NC member or ICANN Board member, such
> >member is
> >unable to attend certain ICANN meetings even if the funds are available
> >from own
> >funds, company funds, other external sources.
> >
> >I am an NC member, and it happened that for Stockholm meeting my organization
> >didn't have budget for pay for me to attend such meeting, I am unelegible to
> >receive funds from Salzburg Seminar because I received in the past two grants.
> >I searched other external funds, but I didn't find them.  And guess what? I
> >decided to pay from my own pocket the airticket and other expenses while
> >in Stockholm and a coleague from Honduras that went also to Stockholm for
> >ICANN meeting kindly offered me her room to stay because it has another bed.
> >
> >Now imagine that the actual situation is for Stockholm meeting and not
> >Montevideo meeting, and I have a nomination I accepted for ICANN Board.   My
> >situation would be exactly the same.   No funds from DNSO, no funds from
> >constituency, no travel grants, no funds from ICANN, no funds from anywhere,
> >only my own pocket (and still I don't achieve to make lower my debt with my
> >credit card).
> >
> >All people (including candidates for certain positions) has the same chance to
> >decide wether attend or not certain ICANN meetings.  If some of the candidates
> >has sponsors or decides to sponsor from their own pocket, or simply doesn't
> >finds any sponsor and decides not go, this is the bussiness of everyone and is
> >not related in any manner with actual positions they hold (NC members,
> >ICANN Board members, etc), because no money comes from ICANN, neither DNSO
> >funds
> >to pay or sponsor candidacy activities.
> >
> >I would like that, in the future, there will be an organization/foundation
> >that
> >decides to have travel grants for DNSO candidates when needed or applicable.
> >
> >And please, keep in mind...all candidates are DNSO candidates!!!
> >
> >Best Regards
> >Vany
> >
> >
> >Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >
> > > Bravo Joana!
> > > Your English being better than mine I will not spoil it.
> > >
> > > I will only say:
> > > 1. I concurr 100% with every word you say
> > > 2. the point is not the candidate capaign but that GA candidates are
> > > excluded from possibilities and advatages granted to non-GA candidates
> > > however the larger support they get (see the endorsements).
> > >
> > > Jefsey
> > >
> > > On 01:25 23/08/01, Joanna Lane said:
> > > >on 8/22/01 12:57 PM, Derek Conant at [email-masked] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Was it appropriate to solicit funding on behalf of the DNSO GA without
> > > > > formal authorization or permission from the DNSO or ICANN?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >I have never professed to speak for DNSO GA and do not now, neither have I
> > > >solicited funds on behalf of the DNSO GA from anybody.
> > > >
> > > >There are a lot of generalizations being bandied about in this discussion
> > > >about funding of Board candidates for Montevideo. Some of these are
> > missing
> > > >the salient points.
> > > >
> > > >What is being overlooked is that on this particular occasion, the election
> > > >of a Board Director coincides with a physical meeting of those judging the
> > > >merits of the candidates. That is an unusual situation. None of those
> > > >participating in this vote have themselves been subjected to the
> > requirement
> > > >to meet f2f with their electorate in advance of their election or
> > > >appointment without an election, nor to the best of my knowledge, are
> > any NC
> > > >representatives funding their own travel expenses to Montevideo, and yet
> > > >they see fit to raise it as an issue with candidates for the current
> > > >election. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > > >
> > > >It has not been the practice or the custom for nominees to participate
> > in a
> > > >physical meeting with their electorate prior to election, for any position
> > > >as Director, member of the NC, Task Forces, GA Chair, or other elected
> > > >official of ICANN DNSO. And it wasn't an issue under discussion in this
> > > >election, until after the election itself commenced. This could be
> > regarded
> > > >as attempts to change the rules of the election after it has started
> > > >(whether or not it is a good or bad thing). Therefore, candidates in this
> > > >election could not have been expected to think that physical attendance
> > > >would be a requirement to qualify, and in fact, it is not. Allegations now
> > > >being made that candidates should not have accepted nomination if they
> > were
> > > >not prepared to attend, are completely unfounded. If you want to
> > change the
> > > >rules, you may do so by consensus, but not retroactively by fiat. If you
> > > >allow any organization to impose rules and regulations in this way,
> > there is
> > > >no end to abuse, hence the importance of concrete consensus building
> > > >procedures to arrive at fair election rules for all affected stakeholders,
> > > >something I myself have advocated very strongly since day one, and is
> > > >supported by calls for the same by the ALSC and ICANN Board, amongst
> > others.
> > > >Attendance of Board candidates at ICANN meetings has not been formally
> > > >adopted in any rules, and is therefore outside the scope of any possible
> > > >criteria that can be set by the NC in their deliberations to judge
> > > >integrity, willingness or interest of any candidate.
> > > >
> > > >Nevertheless, the NC, at the 11th hour, has in its wisdom, taken the
> > > >position that the election should not take place without giving candidates
> > > >the opportunity to meet with that part of the electorate that will be in
> > > >attendance in Montevideo, and in particular, the ccTLD constituency
> > > >representatives who have difficulty communicating with members by other
> > > >means. It could therefore be viewed that new criteria set for this
> > election
> > > >by one constituency, the ccTLDs, supported by other constituencies,
> > has been
> > > >introduced without proper advance notice having been given to affected
> > > >stakeholders who have endorsed candidates already, and not necessarily
> > those
> > > >who were not planning to attend. It may or may not be that those endorsers
> > > >would have rather nominated an alternative candidate. We will never know
> > > >simply because the goal posts have moved during the election.
> > > >
> > > >The notice given to candidates by the NC Teleconference was well past any
> > > >reasonable notice period that would normally be required for a person to
> > > >make themselves available. Now, what is required is to abandon prior
> > > >committments and fly half way round the world for pro bono work, and at
> > > >personal expense, since those who have called for the interview are not
> > > >willing to pay expenses.
> > > >
> > > >I was aware that ICANN was a not for profit organization, but I did not
> > > >think it was a charity, and for a number of years I have personally
> > > >established a policy of charitable giving only to children in need and
> > > >regret that ICANN does not qualify. As far as pro bono work, I have given
> > > >the major portion of my time for many months to DNSO at the expense of
> > other
> > > >pro bono and my own business work that I would normally be doing, and have
> > > >to draw the line at out of pocket expenses amounting to thousands of
> > > >dollars, whether or not I can afford it.
> > > >
> > > >Also, it is not my intention to approach my supporters for funding as that
> > > >discourages those who may now be deliberating on adding their name in
> > > >support, thinking that if they do so, they will be hit for a contribution.
> > > >Endorsements of individuals without a corporate paymaster should not come
> > > >with a price tag that those with corporate funding do not have to impose.
> > > >
> > > >Those organizations that do fund participants have either not replied to
> > > >inquiries made since this issue arose, or have responded negatively.
> > It has
> > > >already been mentioned that it is too late to make such applications.
> > > >
> > > >I sense this is a sports game, whereby, having already competed as an
> > > >unsponsored woman in a largely sponsored man's club and qualified as a
> > > >player, run round the field a few times and scored a few points, now, 5
> > > >minutes before time, the home base has been moved to a few thousand miles
> > > >away, way out of sight......
> > > >
> > > >In any developing organization, obviously the goal posts will move, but it
> > > >is worth noting that the results of moving these specific goal posts
> > at this
> > > >particular moment in time *does* discriminate against those that seek to
> > > >represent the non-represented, (however coincidental that may be). By
> > > >default, this situation favors those candidates with business
> > interests that
> > > >are already well represented at all levels, including the Board, and at a
> > > >time when even the ALSC is calling for a more diverse and balanced
> > > >representation within this organization.
> > > >
> > > >Is it any wonder that DNSO has begun to splinter off real talent, namely
> > > >ccTLDs and now possibly NCDNHC. It is this moving of the goal posts,
> > > >backward and forward, that has frustrated genuine participation in the
> > > >process, and prevented real improvements being made.
> > > >
> > > >Too bad this election is an illusion of fair play, rather than evidence of
> > > >it. I will, nevertheless, continue to strive and speak out for higher
> > > >standards, by whatever means possible. As I said in my candidate
> > statement,
> > > >this is a vote for conscience. You do not need me in Montevideo to
> > meet your
> > > >own. History will be the judge of your vote.
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >
> > > >Joanna
> > > >
> > > >The URLs for Best Practices: DNSO Citation:
> > > >http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
> > > >(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
> > > >Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
> > > >Part I:
> > > >http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
> > > >Part II:
> > > >http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
> > > >(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
> > > >Reader, which is available for free down load at
> > > >http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.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
> >
> >--
> >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
>
> --
> 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
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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:31:56 -0400
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN | Advisory | 23 August 2001

Now respectfully, you should know better than to waste your time
supporting a position that will never be actualized. 

Do you really believe that the DNSO GA is capable of understanding and
handling the responsibility associated with the proposal you support?  

The DNSO GA's purpose, scope and agenda within the ICANN process is
inherently too narrow to stand in the way of any ICANN contractual
relationship or policy changes.

VeriSign's active role in proposing changes is necessary for a better
DNS.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Telephone:  (202) 801-0158
Facsimile:  (202) 234-0685
E-mail:  [email-masked]

Eric Dierker wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Reference: http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr23aug01.htm
> 
> Here is a proposition that due to the great privilege bestowed upon
> Verisign we should be able to invoke.
> 
> Verisign shall make no changes in implementation of the execution of
> its' trilateral contract with ICANN and the DoC without first receiving
> approval from the GA of the DNSO of  ICANN.
> 
> By contract, executive order and DoC regulations this is doable.  Joanna
> wrote this back a few months ago and I think it rings true today;
> 
> Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
> <major snippage>
> >
> > You're not going to like this but.... tech problems should never drive
> 
> > anything related to policy development for social issues. History
> teaches us
> > that technical difficulties can be overcome and therefore should be a
> low
> > priority at this point. First we have to clarify the problem in terms
> of
> > what is, and is not, socially acceptable, and balance this against
> technical
> > requirements to maintain the stability of the net and in particular
> the DNS.
> > Once a socially acceptable solution is found, we identify the
> technical
> > difficulties in achieving the desired solution, then look for the
> technical
> > solution. If there is no existing technical solution, we have to
> develop
> > one. To work the other way round on this particular issue, it to put
> the
> > cart before the horse.
> >
> > There is also the issue of creating a single point of failure that
> > > doesn't exist now.
> >
> > Agreed, but if there's only one WHOIS server for each TLD, that is
> already a
> > single point of failure for that TLD isn't it?
> >
> > >
> > > I have a whois client that looks up the TLD and queries the
> appropriate
> > > host. It then takes the referer reference and re-queries the actual
> host
> > > that has the data. Note that ripe.net is already under EU dominion
> and
> > > they've already altered their whois output.
> >
> > ... and over time the rest will follow as they realize that they have
> no
> > idea how many EU citizens are already in their database.
> Interesting...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Joanna.
> 
> Any highschool research assistant can track Versigns' wholly owned
> subsidiry gobble up expired names and offer them for resale.  This would
> appear to be private profiteering by exploitation of a government
> contract forconcessionairing, which would appear to be unethical.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Eric
> 
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>                                          Advisory
>        [ICANN Logo]
>                                       23 August 2001
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
>        Third Advisory Concerning Equitable Allocation of Shared
>                     Registration System Resources
> 
>   (23 August 2001) As previously reported in advisories dated 16
>   July 2001 and 10 August 2001, the registry operator and registrars
>   participating in the Shared Registration System (SRS) for
>   .com/.net/.org have been working together to devise a plan to
>   handle expiring names in a manner that is fair and does not
>   interfere with other activities in the SRS.
> 
>   While all parties will continue to look for a long-term solution,
>   the registry operator announced today that it has developed, and
>   is preparing to implement, a short-term measure that will allow
>   for the resumption of the batch delete process. This short-term
>   measure will allow for the return of deleted names to the "pool"
>   of names available for registration by any registrant, through any
>   registrar, on a first-come/first-served basis. This will alleviate
>   the growing backlog of names in delete-pending status and may
>   provide additional data for use in developing appropriate
>   long-term solutions.
> 
>   ICANN's Domain Name Supporting Organization has already been
>   advised of the situation and has begun to discuss possible
>   measures for handling expiring names. Members of the community are
>   urged to participate in the DNSO's discussions, so that all
>   viewpoints can be considered in developing measures for fair
>   allocation of expiring names.
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>   Subject: [RegistrarsList] Announcement Regarding Suspension of
>   Delete Batch Job and Connection Utilization within the SRS
>   Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 14:56:57 -0400
>   From: "VeriSign Global Registry Services" <[email-masked]>
>   To: <[email-masked]>
> 
>   To all Registrars:
> 
>   Summary
> 
>   On Friday August 10, 2001, VeriSign Global Registry Services
>   (VeriSign GRS) temporarily suspended the batch releases of deleted
>   .com, .net, and .org domain names to ensure continued service
>   quality within the Shared Registration System (SRS). As described
>   in the announcement of the suspension, VeriSign GRS has been
>   working with ICANN and the registrar community to devise an
>   appropriate plan to handle expiring names in a manner that is fair
>   and does not interfere with other activities in the SRS.
> 
>   VeriSign GRS believes that a long-term solution will require
>   fundamental changes in the way expiring names are handled.
>   Nonetheless, in view of concerns that an ultimate solution might
>   be made more difficult by an accumulation of expiring names during
>   the suspension, VeriSign GRS has been evaluating short-term
>   measures for addressing the issues that caused the suspension. The
>   purpose of this email is to communicate the details of these
>   short-term measures and the schedule for their implementation.
> 
>   VeriSign GRS will continue to work with the Registrar
>   Constituency, the DNSO, and the Names Council to develop better
>   policies and processes for registrations being returned to the
>   available pool. To the extent that the short-term measures
>   described below provide relevant experience, VeriSign GRS will
>   endeavor to share that information in a manner consistent with the
>   confidentiality it accords to its customers' business information.
> 
>   Goals
> 
>   The goals of this new session management process are:
> 
>      * To re-enable the registry batch release process.
>      * To ensure each registrar is able to obtain RRP sessions
>        reasonably necessary to support its business practices.
>      * To support the business practices of each registrar in such a
>        way that the business practices of one would not impact the
>        business practices of another.
>      * Improve performance and lower system latency during peak
>        processing periods.
> 
>   Implementation Details
> 
>   To facilitate the above goals, additional capacity has been added
>   to the SRS and three (3) session pools have been created.
> 
>        1. Guarantee Pool
>        2. Overflow Pool
>        3. Automated Batch Pool
> 
>   Each of these pools is described in detail below. In summary, we
>   expect the implementation of these three session pools to provide
>   the following advantages:
> 
>      * A larger and more reasonable number of guaranteed sessions
>        that will better support small to medium registrars that have
>        a traditional business model and that have been experiencing
>        difficulties obtaining sessions.
>      * Support for registrars whose business model involves more
>        extensive use of automated batch processing, without
>        adversely impacting other registrars.
>      * Eliminate the need for "session squatting” (acquiring and
>        holding sessions that are not needed or used).
> 
>   Guarantee Pool
> 
>   The Guarantee Pool is a session pool in which each registrar is
>   guaranteed 15 sessions. Registrars should continue using the
>   current hostname access (rrp.verisign-grs.com) in order to obtain
>   their guaranteed sessions. There is no change required for
>   registrars to access this pool. Registrars should be aware that
>   due to the load-balancing technology currently employed, it may
>   take multiple connection attempts to obtain these guaranteed
>   sessions. Our data show that over 75% of registrars use 15 or less
>   sessions. Intensive automated batch processing will not be
>   permitted in this pool.
> 
>   Overflow Pool
> 
>   The Overflow Pool is a first-come-first-served pool of additional
>   sessions. As with the Guarantee Pool, the Overflow Pool is
>   accessed via the rrp.verisign-grs.com hostname. VeriSign GRS has
>   added sufficient capacity to this pool to accommodate historical
>   registrar session activity, with the movement of intensive batch
>   processing to the Automated Batch Pool described below. Intensive
>   automated batch processing will not be permitted in this pool. We
>   believe the increased capacity coupled with the movement of batch
>   processing to another pool will enable registrars to obtain the
>   sessions they need when they need them, thus eliminating the need
>   for session “hoarding” or “squatting”.
> 
>   Automated Batch Pool
> 
>   This pool of sessions has been established specifically to support
>   registrars whose business practices include the execution of
>   intensive automated batch processing. This pool is completely
>   separate from the Guarantee Pool and Overflow Pool, and is
>   accessed only via a separate hostname (rrp-auto.verisign-grs.com).
>   Intensive automated batch processes (such as the daily automated
>   CHECK activity) must be performed in this pool only. Registrars
>   that desire to perform this type of activity in this pool should
>   request access from VeriSign GRS. VeriSign GRS will grant access
>   only to those registrars that request it, and will permit up to 50
>   sessions to each requesting registrar. This pool is specifically
>   allocated to intensive automated batch processing. The purpose of
>   this pool is to provide an area where intensive automated batch
>   activities can be performed without impacting other activities.
> 
>   Monitoring
> 
>   VeriSign GRS closely monitors registrar session activity and will
>   work with registrars to assist them in using the session pool(s)
>   that will best support their business activities. Registrars that
>   perform intensive automated batch processing will be required to
>   modify their systems (i.e., use a different RRP hostname address)
>   so that these activities are performed only in the Automated Batch
>   Pool. VeriSign GRS believes that these measures will permit all
>   registrars to obtain as many sessions as needed to perform
>   business. Thus, there should no longer be a need for registrars to
>   "hoard" or "squat" on sessions unnecessarily. VeriSign GRS is
>   ready to implement technology that will automatically close unused
>   sessions; however, we will only implement this technology if
>   session "hoarding"or "squatting" continues to be a problem.
> 
>   VeriSign GRS will utilize several monitoring mechanisms to detect
>   inappropriate session utilization. We will inspect for
>   inappropriate utilization if events such as the following occur:
> 
>      * A sudden change in a registrar’s transaction or session
>        profile
>      * Activity causing impact to system performance
>      * Complaints about system response or inability to obtain
>        sessions
> 
>   Following the occurrence of these types of events, VeriSign GRS
>   will evaluate session activity, looking for the following specific
>   behaviors:
> 
>      * Loops of repeated transactions (e.g., multiple attempts of
>        the same CHECK or ADD command for the same domain name)
>      * A high ratio of "unsuccessful" to "successful" SRS responses
> 
>   If these characteristics exist, this behavior will be determined
>   to be inappropriate for the Guarantee and Overflow Pools and the
>   registrar will be notified and directed to move this activity to
>   the Automated Batch Pool. If you have any additional questions
>   about what constitutes “intensive automated batch processing”,
>   please contact VeriSign GRS Customer Service.
> 
>   Enforcement
> 
>   The following enforcement procedures will be employed.
> 
>      * A 1st offense will result in the registrar having its
>        bandwidth and sessions immediately limited in the Guarantee
>        and Overflow Pools so that the behavior does not impact the
>        system or other registrars. The registrar will receive an
>        email and telephone notification. When the registrar has
>        notified VeriSign GRS of the resolution of the issue (e.g.,
>        the activity has been moved to the Automated Batch Pool),
>        these bandwidth and session limitations will be removed.
>      * A 2nd offense will result in the same action as the 1st, with
>        the added action that the registrar will be notified that
>        subsequent offenses will result in it being blocked entirely
>        from the Guarantee and Overflow Pools.
>      * A 3rd offense will result in the registrar being blocked from
>        the Guarantee and Overflow Pools for 7 days, requiring that
>        all transactions be performed in the Automated Batch Pool.
>      * Subsequent offenses will result in the registrar being
>        blocked from the Guarantee and Overflow Pools for 30 days,
>        requiring that all transactions be performed in the Automated
>        Batch Pool.
> 
>   Enforcement of these procedures will begin with the resumption of
>   batch releases described below.
> 
>   Implementation Schedule
> 
>   These three pools are available now. Registrars that do not engage
>   in intensive automated batch processing may continue to access the
>   SRS through rrp.verisign-grs.com as they do now. No system changes
>   are necessary. No intensive automated batch processing is to be
>   performed in the Guarantee Pool or Overflow Pool. Registrars that
>   do engage in intensive batch processing are required to request
>   access to, and move that activity to, the Automated Batch Pool.
>   This will require a minor modification to use the
>   rrp-auto.verisign-grs.com access host.
> 
>   Resumption of Batch Releases
> 
>   VeriSign GRS believes that the prompt resumption of registry batch
>   releases is in the best interests of the registrars and the
>   Internet community. Therefore, the batch release process will be
>   resumed at 18:00 UTC (1400 hrs EDT) on Thursday, August 30, 2001.
>   Registrars that anticipate resuming associated intensive automated
>   batch processing must modify their systems to access the Automated
>   Batch Pool via rrp-auto.verisign-grs.com by that time. Registrars
>   that perform this type of activity in the Guarantee or Overflow
>   Pools will be subject to the enforcement procedures noted above.
>   Registrars will not be permitted more than 200 total sessions
>   across all pools. This upper limit is not a guarantee. The plan
>   described here only guarantees 15 sessions. However, if registrars
>   use the Automated Batch Pool for intensive batch processing, and
>   use no more sessions than necessary to perform business (e.g., no
>   session "hoarding"), there should be no shortage of sessions.
> 
>   Subsequently, all batch releases will be performed daily at 18:00
>   UTC (1400 hrs EDT). Note this time change. Batch releases are
>   always completed within 15 minutes. Therefore, registrars that
>   utilize intensive batch processing associated with the registry
>   daily batch release have no need to start that processing prior to
>   17:45 UTC (1345 hrs EDT), or to continue it past 18:30 UTC (1430
>   hrs EDT).
> 
>   Assistance
> 
>   The VeriSign GRS Customer Service and Technical Operations staffs
>   are standing by to assist registrars as needed. We will closely
>   monitor the utilization and activity in each pool. If, at any
>   time, a registrar is unable to obtain a session in the Guarantee
>   or Overflow Pools after repeated attempts, please notify VeriSign
>   GRS Customer Service immediately. Registrars should be aware that
>   the ability to obtain sessions can also be impacted by registrar
>   session management practices and Internet Service Provider issues.
>   Sessions that are broken or otherwise terminated uncleanly may
>   require up to 15 minutes to time-out and reset, and depending on
>   the current number of sessions, may inhibit the creation of new
>   sessions until the broken sessions have timed-out.
> 
>   We strongly believe that this process will ensure all registrars
>   can acquire the sessions they need when they need them.
> 
>   VeriSign GRS is committed to ensuring continued SRS service
>   quality, with equitable access to every registrar. As appropriate,
>   this plan may be adjusted in the future to meet that commitment.
> 
>   Best Regards,
> 
>   Chris Sheridan
>   Manager, Customer Service
>   VeriSign Global Registry Services
>   www.verisign-grs.com
>   [email-masked]
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------
- --
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 #699
************************