Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #704
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, August 27 2001           Volume 01 : Number 704

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

Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 09:27:36 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Who owns ICANN?

Dear Dotcommoners,

I include in the address 3 members of our Internation 3rd estate of the
press.  I include a NC leader.  I include our GA chair. And I include
your ICANN board.

This question is becoming tedious due to the lack of conviction in any
response.  As Mr. Froomkin just celebrated a milestone on his news site
I take this opportunity to remind all of the self proclaimed reporters
that they have an obligation that follows their right to report.  That
obligation requires an honest effort to fetter out truth and report
accordingly.  Why have you not reported who owns ICANN.  My U.S.
government has a contract to expend my tax dollars and my American
resources upon a company of which no one will state who owns it.  This
is akin to the great OZ and presided by like the great tea party.

Perhaps Mr. Bruce James or Mike Roberts would enlighten us?

Perhaps Mr. Smiley or Mr. Lynn or Mr. Touton, certainly the California
Secretary of State who has Jurisdiction over this great corporation
cannot enlighten us as they have no current knowledge.

I think that Mr. Gomes would not suggest entering a Multi-billion dollar
corporation into a contract with ICANN lest he knew the ownership.  I
think Jones and Day must know who owns ICANN.

I wonder who dotBIZ and dotINFO actually have a contract with?  What IRS
official is monitoring billions of dollars floating by through the
watchful eye of ICANN which has no public ownership?

Always question authority and if they have no answer their only
authority comes from the end of a billy club.

Sincerely,

Eric

- --
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: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:56:57 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars Selling Dropped Domain Name Lists

>There is a rumor that some Registrars are engaged in selling their
>dropped domain names or expired domain names.
>
>Are there any examples or real evidence concerning Registrars engaged in
>selling their dropped domain names or expired domain name lists?  Are
>there any examples or real evidence in the industry concerning
>Registrars participating in buying or selling expired domain names that
>were originally registered with the Registrar?

http://www2.domainnamesystems.com/expireds.html

And if you want to see an example of a Registrar auctioning off names they
grab in the drops, check out

http://www.namewinner.com brought to you by the Dotster Registrar.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 10:47:22 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Business or Charity?

Dear Dotcommoners,

I cut the tail off this comet and hope that all understand the complexity of
staying on track without a legacy.
"I mean no disrespect to anyone but great disrespect to some Ideas." ed2000.

Jefsey makes a wonderful observation here.  By not clarifying the basic foundation
of ICANNs' existence they remain able to be unaccountable.  I can play snooker,
billiards or eight ball, - five card draw, fish or bridge, but good God if you
don't tell me which game we play I am screwed and you will always win, except when
I quit and take my money elsewhere to an alternative arena.
Verisigns recent Advisory and ICANNs' refusal to acknowledge who owns the
corporation are cases in point.  Do not dare point out that the King wears no
clothes or you will be suspended from this list. Or if the whole list gets to close
they will shut that Net Sol domain policy list down.

I was active and attentive during the approval period of dotINFO and dotBIZ.  I
never saw any written data that reflected that crazy lottery deal.  Just another
example of no accountability.  Read the original DoC contract with ICANN almost no
term has been fulfilled.  Read ICANNs' application for non-profit status with tax
agencies, not one provision has come to pass.  Who elects and appoints our
leaders?  Who gets to S---can them when they fail - nobody - no accountability.

Leadership without accountability to the governed is tyranny.

Have a great day ;-)
Eric

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> We have first to understand what we do, good or bad.
> The first question is: "is the ICANN a business by a corporation or is the
> ICANN a common good oriented effort".
>
> Please respond.
>
> If it is a business it must carry by business rules and accept competition. .
> If its a common good effort it must start first in having Members and being
> accountable to them.
>
> Without that basic clarification, you may spend a lof of time and efforts
> you will go nowhere. As we presently do.
>
> Cheers.
> 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: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:33:23 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Helo Vany,

I'm about to say some things here that I am not too fond of myself. But,
these are observations that I have made over the years, involved with this
process...

|> From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 8:24 AM

|> Hi Dassa:
|> 
|> Please, note that the subject of GA/DNSO funding issues that your are
|> dealing here is only with the accesibility to ICANN Process 
|> by attending meetings or having meetings online, etc.
|> 
|> There are other issues related DNSO funding that are not related with
|> the issue you are exposing here and that I will deal apart.

|> Dassa wrote:
|> 
|> > My proposal is that all ICANN communications/meetings be conducted
|> > online and in the mailing lists.  All hard copy documentation
|> > including internal correspondance be made public on the 
|> website and we
|> > have a fully open system.  (note: some sensitive 
|> correspondance may be
|> > excluded)
|> 
|> Wow Dassa.   I remember you was one of the remote participants of the
|> NCDNHC meeting in Melbourne with VRVS.
|> 
|> However, I think this is  too extreme.  I think still we need F2F
|> interaction.  I think your proposal can be equilibred with a 
|> combination
|> of both things:  more online meetings, less F2F meetings.

Over the years it has become painfully obvious that, online discussions move
glacially.
It is also obvious that there is, at least, a three order of magnitude
acceleration during F2F meetings. The reason is that the person-to-person,
many-to-many, bandwidth is much higher during F2F. Else, why have them at
all? A 1-second eyeball-to-eyeball glance, across a discussion table, speaks
volumes that months of online participation cannot begin to cover.

|> Only there is a thing that you are  missing when the meetings are
|> online:  Time Zone.  I don't think a decision taker person is in its
|> best state of mind at 2:00 a.m. in the morning.

When talking about real-time multimedia stream, I have had these, at
0400hrs. Fortunately, after decades of abuse as a programmer, the sun's
relative position, in local terms, no longer matters to my state of
wakefulness. However, most persons do not enjoy such an advantage and many
simply "switch off" at sunset, like chickens. This has a serious impact on
global real-time discussions. Ignoring this will not make it go away and
will only generate resentment. 

|> Also there is another thing that maybe it worries to ICANN:
|> Accountability.  Are the online meetings accountable?

No more, or less than F2F, in the ICANN context. No meetings are
accountable. I am not being facetious, this is observed fact. If decisions
are being made, they are made, in private, prior too any meetings, online or
otherwise, with no recourse by those not a direct party to those decisions.
We  participants are trying to do something about that, but *we* are not
gaining much traction there.

Note: Erik's question on ICANN ownership speaks directly to this topic. Any
corp is directly and solely accountable to it's owners and the issuer of its
corp charter. Forget the socialist drivel, in the USA that is a matter of
law. Ambiguity in declaration of ownership may gain someone an advantage
somewhere, but the organization *is* accountable to its owner(s), whomever
they may be. Further, those owners are accountable to the issuer of the corp
charter (State of California), whom is further accountable to the US Federal
government. The visible chain appears to be broken, but if the legal chain
were indeed broken then ICANN wouldn't legally exist and all this would be
for nought.

|> I think that we must ask ICANN Board and staff about such 
|> accountability issue, and any other issue around online meetings.

They are, in reality, not legally accountable to us. They don't have to
answer that question. By the same token, because they do not fund any SO,
they are not accountable to them either. This whole mess barely hangs
together. As a matter of fact, I don't see how it does at all. It just does.
That may be the core of the problem.

|> Why the need of F2F meetings?  We have to take in count also 
|> ICANN staff and board needs.  They are also a party in this issue.

I think that the need is adequately represented by the need to make rapid
progress. Although it may not be entirely clear, as to whom progress is
being reported to and how ICANN is anwerable.

|> > One of the reasons for this suggestion is that even if we 
|> evolve both
|> > internal and external funding, there will always be 
|> inequality between
|> > those who have good finances and those who don't.

|> Neither technology neither financial resources should be an 
|> obstacle. 

This is a goal that, even idealized, has no connection with reality. We are
not all created equal. There are those that will never be able to connect to
the internet, nor would they ever want to. There are others that simply do
not have the resources and this crowd doesn't have the collective resources
to make up the difference.

- --
R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
tel: +1 925 373 3954
cel: +1 925 352 3615
fax: +1 925 373 9781 
http://www.mhsc.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:49:56 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Registrars Selling Dropped Domain Name Lists

Sunday, Sunday, August 26, 2001, 9:56:57 AM, Andy Gardner wrote:

>>There is a rumor that some Registrars are engaged in selling their
>>dropped domain names or expired domain names.
>>
>>Are there any examples or real evidence concerning Registrars engaged in
>>selling their dropped domain names or expired domain name lists?  Are
>>there any examples or real evidence in the industry concerning
>>Registrars participating in buying or selling expired domain names that
>>were originally registered with the Registrar?

> http://www2.domainnamesystems.com/expireds.html

> And if you want to see an example of a Registrar auctioning off names they
> grab in the drops, check out

> http://www.namewinner.com brought to you by the Dotster Registrar.

To be clear, both companies are selling chances to register domains
that had been dropped at the registry and will become available for
reregistration, not names that are registered with them, but not
renewed by their customers, like the question was seeking.

The "auction" actually just means that Dotster will attempt to get the
domain name on behalf of the customer who offers them the most money
before the domain name is dropped.

- -- 
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: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 14:40:14 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Registrars Selling Dropped Domain Name Lists

At 11:49 AM -0700 26/8/01, William X Walsh wrote:
>> http://www2.domainnamesystems.com/expireds.html
>
>> And if you want to see an example of a Registrar auctioning off names they
>> grab in the drops, check out
>
>> http://www.namewinner.com brought to you by the Dotster Registrar.
>
>To be clear, both companies are selling chances to register domains
>that had been dropped at the registry and will become available for
>reregistration, not names that are registered with them, but not
>renewed by their customers, like the question was seeking.

I disagree. Re-read the wording on the domainnamesystems.com page:

"EXCLUSIVE!!! - not available at any other registrar!!
These domains are recently expired and have not yet been released into the
registry!
They are available for re-registration only through Domain Name Systems!"

They are talking about names that were registered through their system.
When one of their clients fails to pay the annual fee and the name goes
on-hold, they offer them to allcomers, with a sliding scale payment
depending on how long it is before the name gets deleted.

These names are for sale for $15
acuratoys.com
big-ass.org

These names are $60 - because they expired more recently
clubalison.com
esexmagazine.com

Check the WHOIS details - domainnamesystems is a Tucows reseller?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 17:56:42 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: (Fwd) Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

On 26 Aug 2001, at 11:23, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:

> 
> >  The common ground for the majority is access to the Internet.
> 
> Yes, this is true.  But still we must work together with
> organizations, who knows, even governments, in order to assure that
> the stakeholders has a proper access.  Many participants of this
> process doesn't have a proper access to the Internet.

I wonder just how far afeild we should venture here.  When we 
speak of stakeholders we do include users, of course.  However, 
that assumes on a basic level, some access to the internet.

I do not think that ICANN is the relevant source for provision of
internet infrastructure for all persons and we could go way out of
bounds using that assumption.

I'm beginning to see the notion in some of these posts that 
providing access to the net is part of ICANN's responsibility.  It is
not.  It is, however, crucial that those who do have net access have
the opportunity to participate in the process in a meaningfull 
manner.

For those who cannot access the www, there is IRC chat 
participation  It is not perfect, but anyone with a modem 
connection can get at least chat and scribe notes.  For those more
fortunate, there is audio/video webcasting which at least allows 
those
with a 56k connection access in real time and/or archived replays.

IMO, it would be just wonderful if governments and other 
organizations could and would provide better infrastructure to users
and other stakeholders so that literally anyone who is interested
could participate in webcast meetings.  However, I would not go as 
far
as to expect that ICANN is the means for this provision.

I also believe that ICANN should provide webcasts of more of the
meetings than they do at this time and not allow private meetings at
all.  The so's meetings should be covered - any agenda meeting, for
that matter, IMO, at least in audio/chat.  That way, all stakeholders
would have the opportunity to participate in all aspects of the 
ICANN
process.

Leah

- --
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: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:53:06 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Best Practices -- Time Line Guide

Part III of Best Practices, the Time Line Guide, has
now been posted by the DNSO Secretariat (bless her
heart!) at the URL shown below in my sig file. Any and
all comments are again earnestly solicited and would be
gratefully received by either Joanna or myself. (We are
especially interested in the views of everyone as to the
lengths of time allotted.)

The time lines set were based on the published Flow
Chart.  Of course, it should be understood that the
path followed by that particular flow chart is only
one of many possible ones that might occur. It does
however, include at least one instance of all of the
events presently anticipated that might occur, and
it is for that same reason that the Time Line Guide
follows that particular Flow Chart.

There will be two more parts: Part IV -- Role of the
GA Secretariat; and Part V -- Analysis.  Because of
Montevideo, there will unfortunately be a lapse of time
before these appear, but in the meantime it would be
great to be able to build onto the stack of comments
so far received, so that upon posting of IV and V,
Joanna and I would be in a position quickly to write
a Version 2.0 that would take all of them into account.

Thanks,

Bill Lovell

- --

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." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
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 the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.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: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 16:09:54 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

L Gallegos wrote:

> On 26 Aug 2001, at 11:23, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
>
> IMO, it would be just wonderful if governments and other
> organizations could and would provide better infrastructure to users
> and other stakeholders so that literally anyone who is interested
> could participate in webcast meetings.  However, I would not go as
> far
> as to expect that ICANN is the means for this provision.

There may be a "model" for that sort of thing.  I'm on a service
called OregonVOS.net, which is run by the State of Oregon
(through a third party vendor), and it was put together not for
reasons of people lacking funds but rather because Oregon is
a big, wild and wooly state, and it has isolated communities that
are lucky even to have a phone line, let alone an ISP.  When
"this Internet thing" started looking serious, the state put together
both a central server and a system whereby there are local dial-in
numbers throughout Oregon at practically every wide spot in the
road. (I myself signed on with them because of those local dial-in
numbers -- I'd been popping out of the Portland area to both
Newport and Lincoln City, and using the local dial-in numbers in
all three places -- seamless internet access, so to speak!)

Anyway, if simple "access" is the issue, and in many other places
in the world it certainly is, that is one way to do it.  (How it was
done in terms of hardware, etc., I have no idea.)

(Relative to the single paragraph of Leah's that I retained above,
I speak now not of webcasts as such but indeed any access at all,
which might be the biggest problem of them all.  This is a "digital
divide" kind of thing, methinks.)

Bill Lovell
- --

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." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
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 the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.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: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 21:42:59 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

On 26 Aug 2001, at 16:09, William S. Lovell wrote:

> 
> 
> L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> > On 26 Aug 2001, at 11:23, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
> >
> > IMO, it would be just wonderful if governments and other
> > organizations could and would provide better infrastructure to users
> > and other stakeholders so that literally anyone who is interested
> > could participate in webcast meetings.  However, I would not go as
> > far as to expect that ICANN is the means for this provision.
> 
> There may be a "model" for that sort of thing.  I'm on a service
> called OregonVOS.net, which is run by the State of Oregon
> (through a third party vendor), and it was put together not for
> reasons of people lacking funds but rather because Oregon is
> a big, wild and wooly state, and it has isolated communities that are
> lucky even to have a phone line, let alone an ISP.  When "this
> Internet thing" started looking serious, the state put together both a
> central server and a system whereby there are local dial-in numbers
> throughout Oregon at practically every wide spot in the road. (I
> myself signed on with them because of those local dial-in numbers --
> I'd been popping out of the Portland area to both Newport and Lincoln
> City, and using the local dial-in numbers in all three places --
> seamless internet access, so to speak!)
> 
> Anyway, if simple "access" is the issue, and in many other places in
> the world it certainly is, that is one way to do it.  (How it was done
> in terms of hardware, etc., I have no idea.)
> 
> (Relative to the single paragraph of Leah's that I retained above, I
> speak now not of webcasts as such but indeed any access at all, which
> might be the biggest problem of them all.  This is a "digital divide"
> kind of thing, methinks.)
> 
> Bill Lovell
> --

Yes, there is definitely a digital divide, but solving that is not part of 
the function of ICANN, IMO.  I think that we must concentrate on 
making it possible for those who ARE connected to participate in 
ICANN's decisions process.  The point is that ICANN's 
stakeholders are those who are on the net in whatever capacity.  
Those who are not yet on the net are future or possible future 
stakeholders.  ICANN's stakeholders do not have the means to 
participate, even with the webcasting, because they are denied a 
voice that has any meaning.  IOW, ignored or paid meaningless lip 
service.

Let's deal with what "is" and not what "might be."

Leah

- --
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: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 19:19:49 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] Registrars Selling Dropped Domain Name Lists

Sunday, Sunday, August 26, 2001, 12:40:14 PM, Andy Gardner wrote:

> At 11:49 AM -0700 26/8/01, William X Walsh wrote:
>>> http://www2.domainnamesystems.com/expireds.html
>>
>>> And if you want to see an example of a Registrar auctioning off names they
>>> grab in the drops, check out
>>
>>> http://www.namewinner.com brought to you by the Dotster Registrar.
>>
>>To be clear, both companies are selling chances to register domains
>>that had been dropped at the registry and will become available for
>>reregistration, not names that are registered with them, but not
>>renewed by their customers, like the question was seeking.

> I disagree. Re-read the wording on the domainnamesystems.com page:

> "EXCLUSIVE!!! - not available at any other registrar!!
> These domains are recently expired and have not yet been released into the
> registry!
> They are available for re-registration only through Domain Name Systems!"

> They are talking about names that were registered through their system.
> When one of their clients fails to pay the annual fee and the name goes
> on-hold, they offer them to allcomers, with a sliding scale payment
> depending on how long it is before the name gets deleted.

> These names are for sale for $15
> acuratoys.com
> big-ass.org

> These names are $60 - because they expired more recently
> clubalison.com
> esexmagazine.com

> Check the WHOIS details - domainnamesystems is a Tucows reseller?

Except that the system doesn't work that way.  The domains are already
expired, and set for deletion 45 days later.  The domains in question
can't be transferred, since they have a registry lock on them until
they are deleted and made available for reregistration.

The only way it would work, is if the registrants are co-operating and
have designated their registration provider (who is not a registrar,
but a reseller, and thus not subject to all of the rules) as an agent
to sell the domain names, and agrees to transfer of the domain name
when their reseller pays for an additional year on the domain to
unlock it and open it up for transfer.  I had a client myself who gave
me a list of domains that he was not renewing, and basically said if I
know anyone who wants them, he would approve their transfer.  He
wanted $5 out of the transaction, we offered the names for $19
including the one year renewal of the domain.  There is nothing
inappropriate or bad about doing that.

Like I said, it all comes down to the relationship between the
registrant and the reseller.

As for Dotster (the one that is in fact a registrar), all of the names
they are offering are registry deletes.

- -- 
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: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 22:34:55 -0400
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Leah:

L Gallegos wrote:

> On 26 Aug 2001, at 11:23, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
>
> >
> > >  The common ground for the majority is access to the Internet.
> >
> > Yes, this is true.  But still we must work together with
> > organizations, who knows, even governments, in order to assure that
> > the stakeholders has a proper access.  Many participants of this
> > process doesn't have a proper access to the Internet.

> I do not think that ICANN is the relevant source for provision of
> internet infrastructure for all persons and we could go way out of
> bounds using that assumption.

I inferred what you are saying in my previous e-mail  Yes...I am agree,
providing or ensuring
internet access is outside the scope of ICANN.  Howevert ICANN should be
sensible to this...maybe by
using remote participations tools that can be used in low bandwith
connections, for example.  And they are doing it already.

> For those who cannot access the www, there is IRC chat
> participation  It is not perfect, but anyone with a modem
> connection can get at least chat and scribe notes.  For those more
> fortunate, there is audio/video webcasting which at least allows
> those with a 56k connection access in real time and/or archived
> replays.

I must say that ICANN already provide both tools for remote
participation.
Of course, over a 56Kbps, the video string is impossible to see, but the
audio is good.
The main issue here is that ICANN is doing already.  So, they are
sensible to the situation of many people that cannot attend meetings
and/or having low bandwith.

> IMO, it would be just wonderful if governments and other
> organizations could and would provide better infrastructure to users
> and other stakeholders so that literally anyone who is interested
> could participate in webcast meetings.  However, I would not go as
> far as to expect that ICANN is the means for this provision.

The same.  When I said "we must work together with organizations even
with government" was talking about us as individuals and organizations
in our countries.

> I also believe that ICANN should provide webcasts of more of the
> meetings than they do at this time and not allow private meetings
> at all.  The so's meetings should be covered - any agenda meeting,
> for that matter, IMO, at least in audio/chat.  That way, all
> stakeholders would have the opportunity to participate in all
> aspects of the ICANN process.

ICANN do this already for GA meeting, NC meetings, ICANN Board meeting,
Public Forum.

Constiuencies are responsible for pay and/or provide means for remote
participation.   I am glad to tell you that the Non-Commercial DOmain
Names Holders Constituency is providing since Melbourne meetings remote
participation in our F2F meetings.   ICANN kindly let us use their
conectivity and with my laptop plus some audio equipment I have achieved
remote participation in audio and video over the Internet.   You will
see soon the announcement for our meeting in Montevideo.
The best is that the only cost some times is the audio equipment to hire
in the rooms...However, thanks to kind contributors, this hasn't be a
problem.  Now for Montevideo, the audio equipment is included in the
room costs, for example.

Best Regards

Vany

- --
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: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 20:48:14 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars Selling Dropped Domain Name Lists

Mr. walsh,

Do you just want to argue for no reason?  Your position here is untenable at best
and down right criminally a misrepresentation at least.  Your second paragraph
below is a representation without fact and damaging to those who need the truth.
Denying the capture of expiring domain names by the registrars and Verisign is
tantamount to complicity.  You say "the only way it would work is if," Good god
man it is happening are you blind?  You blather on about matters that are not true
and you mislead dotcommoners into thinking the situation is all right.  Be daft on
your own but do not use your high knowledge to mislead those without into thinking
that all is well.

By the way give my best to your family and I hope all are well.

Sincerely,
Eric

William X Walsh wrote:

>
> Except that the system doesn't work that way.  The domains are already
> expired, and set for deletion 45 days later.  The domains in question
> can't be transferred, since they have a registry lock on them until
> they are deleted and made available for reregistration.
>
> The only way it would work, is if the registrants are co-operating and
> have designated their registration provider (who is not a registrar,
> but a reseller, and thus not subject to all of the rules) as an agent
> to sell the domain names, and agrees to transfer of the domain name
> when their reseller pays for an additional year on the domain to
> unlock it and open it up for transfer.  I had a client myself who gave
> me a list of domains that he was not renewing, and basically said if I
> know anyone who wants them, he would approve their transfer.  He
> wanted $5 out of the transaction, we offered the names for $19
> including the one year renewal of the domain.  There is nothing
> inappropriate or bad about doing that.
>
> Like I said, it all comes down to the relationship between the
> registrant and the reseller.
>
> As for Dotster (the one that is in fact a registrar), all of the names
> they are offering are registry deletes.

- --
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: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:00:48 -0400
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

L Gallegos wrote:

> On 26 Aug 2001, at 16:09, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > There may be a "model" for that sort of thing.  I'm on a service
> > called OregonVOS.net, which is run by the State of Oregon
> > (through a third party vendor),

Good for inhabitants of the Oregon State!!!

> Yes, there is definitely a digital divide, but solving that is not part of
> the function of ICANN, IMO.  I think that we must concentrate on
> making it possible for those who ARE connected to participate in
> ICANN's decisions process.

Agree.  And always use technology that are accesible fo those that
incorporates in a later date.
Is obvious that in Internet, researchers and programmer are designing codes,
software, images and audio formats that
have better quality and more heavier than in the past (in technology the past
is like one minute ago).

I  heard the following phrase from a young researcher from Mexico who I met
in a Digital Video Workshop that took place in Georgia Tech, which was held
in March of this year:  "Sometimes, just because you (this is me) are
searching tools or systems that
have low cost and allows access with low bandwiths, then you (this me again)
are making a step back in the development of technolgy"

Bottom line here is:  We have to be carefull about technology.  That better
resolution images and better audio quality doesn't impress to us, because
latecommers  probably are using low speeds to access Internet, in comparison
with the rest of the world.  And if we begin to upgrade software  and ask for
better quality audio and video (which also requires to upgrade the hardware
and internet speed), we are denying for those that hasn't have the chance to
upgrade their hardware and internet speed to access what in the past they was
able to access.

I wonder if there is still people using UUCP for mail, and 14Kbps modems for
access internet and participates in ICANN.

> The point is that ICANN's
> stakeholders are those who are on the net in whatever capacity.
> Those who are not yet on the net are future or possible future
> stakeholders.  ICANN's stakeholders do not have the means to
> participate, even with the webcasting, because they are denied a
> voice that has any meaning.  IOW, ignored or paid meaningless lip
> service.

That's why many Non-Commercial organizations and even ISPs particiaptes in
ICANN, in order to also watch the interests of those sectors the constituency
represents, that doesn't have the ability to participate by themselves.

> Let's deal with what "is" and not what "might be."

Agree, but I would add that always keeping an eye to the future.

Best Regards
Vany

- --
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: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 21:08:48 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Registrars Selling Dropped Domain Name Lists

Sunday, Sunday, August 26, 2001, 8:48:14 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Mr. walsh,

> Do you just want to argue for no reason?  Your position here is untenable at best

Get some Facts, Eric.

You obviously have no knowledge how the systems in question work, when
you do, come back and we'll discuss it intelligently.

- -- 
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 #704
************************