Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #706
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, August 27 2001           Volume 01 : Number 706

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

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:36:42 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

- --=====================_13695284==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

On 06:43 27/08/01, William S. Lovell said:
>(A recent court document I'm aware of says "The Internet was
>built in order to serve business interests." How many of you here
>believe that?)

It would be interesting to describe the process of building the
Internet. This amounts to who is ruling the interlands or who
is building the interstices.

When ICANN understands it does not govern a Net but
is to provide virtual infrastructure to an "inter"  and when
ccTLD understand their future lies in the "cc" rather than
in "TLD" ...

The simplest things are the most difficult to understand....
Jefsey

- --=====================_13695284==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
On 06:43 27/08/01, William S. Lovell said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>(A recent court document I'm aware
of says &quot;The Internet was <br>
<i>built</i> in order to serve business interests.&quot; How many of you
here <br>
believe that?) </blockquote><br>
It would be interesting to describe the process of building the <br>
Internet. This amounts to who is ruling the interlands or who<br>
is building the interstices.<br>
<br>
When ICANN understands it does not govern a Net but <br>
is to provide virtual infrastructure to an &quot;inter&quot;&nbsp; and
when <br>
ccTLD understand their future lies in the &quot;cc&quot; rather 
than<br>
in &quot;TLD&quot; ...<br>
<br>
The simplest things are the most difficult to understand....<br>
Jefsey<br>
<br>
</html>

- --=====================_13695284==_.ALT--

- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:47:34 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Hello Roeland!

Roeland Meyer wrote:
> 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.

Since the question "who owns ICANN" so frequently pops up, 
maybe this is an item for ICANN.org's FAQ section?

From what I as a non-U.S. non-lawyer understand (and I 
hope that U.S. lawyers clarify it), a non-profit 
corporation has no owner, cannot issue shares and cannot 
pay dividends. The Smiley vs. ICANN request for a 
preliminary injunction was sent to C.T. Corporation 
System (http://www.ctcorporation.com), because this 
is ICANN's agent for service of process (something like 
a representative authorized to receive certain 
documents)
http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C2121683

Oversimplified, you seem to need only Articles of 
Incorporation and an initial Board of Directors or
alternatively incorporators to start a California
non-profit public benefit corporation. In this case, 
the incorporators were G.A. Ellis and Clint L. Duran
(I think lawyers from Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue), and 
the initial Board took over from those incorporators
at the organizational meeting. 
http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-25oct98.html

Neither the former incorporators nor the agent own the
corporation, and there are no shareholders, so the
question "who owns ICANN" does not seem to make any
sense. Oversimplified even more (to a point where
I fear lawyers' responses...), ICANN seems to own 
itself. When it comes to who may spend ICANN's money,
who may dissolve ICANN, who may change the bylaws
etc., the answer is clearer: the Board (or, within
limits, those authorized to do so by the Board).
So the chain is not broken -- it's simply different
from a for-profit corporation with owners.

Does that make any sense?

Best regards,
/// Alexander
- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 19:48:43 +1100
From: "Mark Flynn" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

What we are talking about here is having ICANN try and play a role in
facilitating universal access to the Internet, which is essentially part of
the concept of universal delivery of telecommunications services. This would
appear to be well outside the scope of operation of an organisation like
ICANN, although perhaps they should participate in some way with the many
other national and global organisations trying to achieve this ideal.
Organisations like the UN (UNDP/UNOPS and other UN agencies),  World Bank,
ITU, or national government agencies like the USA FCC and Department of
Agriculture, etc.

The reality that much, approximately 1/3, of the worlds population are still
waiting to be able to make a telephone call, and now need to be able to use
the Internet, presents a major global development problem. The problem is
also more than just "fundamentally a technical problem" it involves major
changes to many national telecommunication operating environments around the
world, changes that would introduce competition where there is none, and
stronger regulatory policies where they may be currently lacking.  Changes
that would try to introduce information and communications technologies
(ICT) into markets (communities) that do not necessarily have the economic
maturity to pay for them yet, the bottom line being that someone has to pay
for the set-up and operating costs of telecommunications, no matter what
form they take. Hence the chicken and the egg syndrome.

For more information on how Oregon probably got networked take a look at the
report titled National Approaches to Meeting the Communication Needs of
Rural and Remote Users at http://www.circit.rmit.edu.au/publics/index.html
this will cost you AU$22, there are no doubt many other similar documents
available on the Internet, if others know of them I am interested in this
subject matter. Take a look at
http://www.peoplefirst.net.sb/General/PFnet.htm , also used in other
locations around the world, for an example of how slow things can get but at
least they will have some form of telecommunications beyond a voice echoing
over a VHF/UHF radio.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of William
> S. Lovell
> Sent: Monday, 27 August 2001 5:55 PM
> To: Roeland Meyer
> Cc: [email-masked]; L Gallegos; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues
>
>
>
>
> Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
> > Bill, we have here a classic boundary problem. There are a
> number of other
> > entities that are taking on the access issues. One of those
> that I belong to
> > is the ISOC (www.isoc.org). Also, the ICANN is supposed to
> be a technical
> > coordination body.
>
> Don't think so. What you term a "social service" is in fact the core
> requirement of the MoU: technical coordination of the Internet for
> the public good.  To limit the "public" to those already
> neatly connected
> constitutes mission abandonment: the "public" is taken, in
> ICANN terms,
> to mean only those who already have the technology to be connected,
> whereas it is highly doubtful that that is what the USG meant. To get
> people connected is to string wires or the like and then get
> those wires
> to work together, and that is fundamentally a technical problem.
>
> > What you advocate here would constitute mission-creep,
> > because it falls in the realm of social services. Firstly,
> I don't think
> > that ICANN can even do it. That's not the core business.
> Secondly, the
> > resources aren't there. Thirdly, it's not our call to make.
> >
> > BTW, HTML mail is a bear to format a reply to.
>
> I know.  I hate little blue lines. But when that's what one gets, what
> is one to do? (I've tried sending replies as text only, but once one
> starts in HTML, distinctions as to who wrote what can again get
> lost.  But I'll send this text and see again what happens.)
>
> Bill
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 19:42:38 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
|> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 1:24 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Hi Vany

<snip>
|> There are other issues related DNSO funding that are not related with
|> the issue you are exposing here and that I will deal apart.

Certainly, the suggestion was limited on purpose.  A beach is laid by the
first grains of sand.

|> Wow Dassa.   I remember you was one of the remote participants of the
|> NCDNHC meeting in Melbourne with VRVS.

As I have at others.  My suggestion is that the meetings should be
conducted with with all participants attending remotely.  That levels the
playing field somewhat.

|> 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.

Personally I see no need for F2F meetings at all.  The issues to be dealt
at such meetings do not require F2F and it gives obvious advantages to a
minority.

|> 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.

Minor point.  One we all deal with when we do business across time zones.
There are ways to deal with the issue.

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

Far more accountable than F2F.  Are all the discussions, hallway
conversations and back room agreements recorded?  No, they are not.  There
is far more that goes on at F2F meetings than any remote participant ever
hears about.  With all such meetings conducted online and I mean fully
online, the whole procedure can be documented and recorded.  The accounting
and auditing would be greatly improved.

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

No, they answer to who they are accountable to, in this case the Internet
public.  They should not dictate terms.

|> 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.

Honestly I can only see a limited need for any non-public viewing if not
participation of any Board or staff meetings.  There would of course be
some sensitive matters that can not be made public until the correct time
and online meetings can be structured to accomadate these.  At least we
would all know when they are happening if not the content.

|> > 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.
|>
|> Sadly, yes.  But even with online meetings, then the disadvantage will
|> remain, because there are many people with not enough bandwith or even
|> not able to buy a good modem that wouldn't be able to participate in
|> online meetings.

No system is perfect but we can assume those with a specific interest would
be able to participate. Let's face the practical aspects.  If people do not
have a modem or some means to access the Internet they are unlikely to have
any interest in the ICANN process.  They would be involved in other
matters.  It would be far more productive to concentrate on removing the
barriers to participation that those interested are now facing rather than
day dreaming about how people with no current interest may or may not be
disadvantaged.  If some of the disadvantages can be lessened for those
interested now, all will benefit and other alternatives can be investigated
as the need arises.

|> We will have always people that remains outside the process, and then we
|> will need always to find funds in order to make such disadvantages come
|> closer as possible to the process.

Personally I think if we concentrate on making things better for the ones
that are already trying to participate, the rest will eventually follow.
If we attempt to limit the requirements for additional funds at this stage
we will set some ground work so that outreach will be possible to a greater
degree in the future.  We must not concentrate on Utopia so much that we
loose sight of what is actually possible now.

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

They will always be some obstacles in this regard.  The human race is
designed for equality.  We can only attempt to limit the impact.

|> We have also to keep in mind this, since not everybody is connected to
the
|> Internet properly.

I'm on a dialup myself although I do have access to greater bandwidth.  As
for those not connected now, isn't it better to deal with the current
situation which is that people who are connected and who wish to
participate are disadvantaged.  Attempting to attain Utopia in one giant
step is far beyond anything that is achievable at this stage.

|> > We can never hope
|> > to match the expenditure some large companies may be willing to put
|> > into the ICANN process.
|>
|> Agree.
|>
|> > We can not enforce equality as the system
|> > currently stands.
|>
|> Agree.  Even in the best democracy, people living far away from votation
|> centers has to walk one or two hours in order to vote.
|> So, only the one with the energy to walk such distance will vote.
|> However, our system as they are, cannot fullfill that votation centers
|> are so close to be easy to access for every citizen.
|> This is a problem that is, right now outside the scope of ICANN,
|> although ICANN should be sensible to this.
|>
|> > We need to place limits so that those with
|> > financial advantages only have the same access as those with limited
|> > funds.
|>
|> Agree with this though.  We must find the way how to do it that no one
|> feels excluded neither disadvantaged

The idea is to limit the disadvantages, I do not honestly believe it is
possible to elimate them.

|> >  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.

Work can be carried out in this line but it should not limit what we do
now.

|> > Let us make that our base line.  Not the higher level of needing to
|> > attend F2F meetings and invest large sums into a process we are all
|> > contributing to as volunteers.
|>
|> Althouhg I like this thinking, please, keep in mind that anyway, some
|> F2F meetings will be required.
|> We must find an equilibria in this.

We think differently on this aspect and I know a lot of other people agree
with you.  Perhaps it is a personality trait of mine that does not see the
need for such meetings in a group like ICANN.

|> I propose that the ICANN works in this issue in order to increase the
|> accesibility of everybody in ICANN process by lower the difference
|> between the ones with resources, and the ones without resources.

More work on this issue would certainly be welcome.

|> In order to begin, I think that the DNSO must propose to ICANN the
|> formation of a group to work on this issue.  Such group should include
|> people from: ICANN staff, ICANN Board or a delegate, DNSO
|> (Constituencies, NC, GA), GAC, ASO and PSO.
|> I think in this proposal should be included, mission, objectives, the
|> importance both for ICANN and stakeholders, etc.

This would be a good start.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:42:10 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: ASO+PSO Directors [Was: Re: [ga] french candidate Eric Jonvel]

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>
>The other SOs elect their Directors during f2f meetings.

This is not true, please check the facts.

Incidentally, for those who did not know yet, Vint Cerf has been reelected 
for a second term by the PSO at the end of July (during a teleconference of 
the Protocol Council).

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 11:09:05 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion for new moderators and some leadership from the Chair

May be could we limit the number of mails to ga-abuse?
5 per month?

On 10:55 27/08/01, Sotiris Sotiropoulos said:
>William X Walsh wrote:
> > Monday, Monday, August 27, 2001, 1:22:33 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > > What William means to say is that he can't get anyone suspended with his
> > > constant complaints to ga-abuse, so we better change moderators to 
> suit his
> > > disposition.
<snip>
>I never intimated any such thing.  I'm of the opinion that the list discussion
>has been quite orderly of late, without any need for explicit 
>"enforcement".  In
>my opinion, the list moderators have been doing an excellent job to date, 
>and I'd
>like to thank them for their thankless work.
>Sincerely,
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Thanks shared by most I suppose.
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

- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 11:05:27 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Dear Roleand,
ICANN should assume an infrastructure management mission only. Let suppose 
there is not much access in Saudi. I agree ICANN's role does not extend to 
organize access there. But ICANN role is not to *prevent* that access 
there. Without Arabic DNs, do you really believe many investors will be 
interested in Saudi popular Internet? The world is proximity SLD and TLD 
starving thanks to ICANN... while proximity is the largest expansion field 
for the Internet.
Jefsey

On 08:39 27/08/01, Roeland Meyer said:
>Bill, we have here a classic boundary problem. There are a number of other
>entities that are taking on the access issues. One of those that I belong to
>is the ISOC (www.isoc.org). Also, the ICANN is supposed to be a technical
>coordination body. What you advocate here would constitute mission-creep,
>because it falls in the realm of social services. Firstly, I don't think
>that ICANN can even do it. That's not the core business. Secondly, the
>resources aren't there. Thirdly, it's not our call to make.
>
>BTW, HTML mail is a bear to format a reply to.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 9:44 PM
>
>Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
>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.
>
>
>Well, I'm afraid I must disagree with both you and Leah on this one.
>ICANN is supposed to be a technical supporting body that is to help
>construct an Internet that will serve the public good, and if providing
>bare access to the Internet is not a part of that, I don't know what
>would be.  To elevate the issue of webcast access to the presently
>connected above that sounds very much like the "haves" haggling
>over pieces of the pie while the unconnected are snubbed. It's a
>bit of the "I'm all right, Jack" syndrome, and, philosophically, is
>not a bit different mode of thinking than that about which so many
>of all of us have complained: the "powers that be" (e.g., ICANN/
>Verisign) are running everything for their own benefit.  In the
>present instance, those who have comfortable access to the net
>(webcast or not) are the "powers that be," and the attitude shown
>here towards those not connected is precisely of the ICANN/
>Verisign type.
>It is also a major strategic mistake: if GA types are ever to wield
>any power, there must be a lot more of them -- and active, voting
>ones.  The only way to achieve that is to get more GA types, and
>that means getting more people connected, especially those in
>disadvantaged parts of the world, or disadvantaged parts (either
>geographically or socio-economically) of various countries, who
>will not have immediate business interests that will currupt their
>thinking.
>(A recent court document I'm aware of says "The Internet was
>built in order to serve business interests." How many of you here
>believe that?)
>The post to which I respond were written from the point of view
>of personal interest, not the good of the Internet or of ICANN:
>"Let them eat IRC chat."
>(Nothing personal as to two fine ladies here, whose posts I have
>frequently been led to admire, but I've seen this bit expressed by
>way, way too many who don't fully realize how far up the ladder
>they really are -- to be a "participant" at all is a rare privilege, and
>a big step from not being one at all.)
>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

- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:54:41 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Is the crucial question not what does ICANN own?

Best,
CA

Date sent:      	Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:47:34 +0200
From:           	Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
To:             	[email-masked]
Subject:        	RE: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Hello Roeland!

Roeland Meyer wrote:
> 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.

Since the question "who owns ICANN" so frequently pops up, 
maybe this is an item for ICANN.org's FAQ section?

>From what I as a non-U.S. non-lawyer understand (and I 
hope that U.S. lawyers clarify it), a non-profit 
corporation has no owner, cannot issue shares and cannot 
pay dividends. The Smiley vs. ICANN request for a 
preliminary injunction was sent to C.T. Corporation 
System (http://www.ctcorporation.com), because this 
is ICANN's agent for service of process (something like 
a representative authorized to receive certain 
documents)
http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C2121683

Oversimplified, you seem to need only Articles of 
Incorporation and an initial Board of Directors or
alternatively incorporators to start a California
non-profit public benefit corporation. In this case, 
the incorporators were G.A. Ellis and Clint L. Duran
(I think lawyers from Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue), and 
the initial Board took over from those incorporators
at the organizational meeting. 
http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-25oct98.html

Neither the former incorporators nor the agent own the
corporation, and there are no shareholders, so the
question "who owns ICANN" does not seem to make any
sense. Oversimplified even more (to a point where
I fear lawyers' responses...), ICANN seems to own 
itself. When it comes to who may spend ICANN's money,
who may dissolve ICANN, who may change the bylaws
etc., the answer is clearer: the Board (or, within
limits, those authorized to do so by the Board).
So the chain is not broken -- it's simply different
from a for-profit corporation with owners.

Does that make any sense?

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 05:02:02 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Who Owns ICANN

Dear Mr. Meyer and Mr. Svensson,

Very awesome analysis.  But who owns ICANN should be a simple question and upon an
answer we can require accountability, because we shall know the king to which we
may petition.

Who are these individuals?

Paul Vixie,
Paul Montapitiris
Greg Crew
Vint Cerf
Kim Hubbard
Carolyn Chicone

Please note my research has shown a variety of spellings to their names and so I
apologize to any error.

Does the Postal trust still own ICANN?  Most important is why the board or staff
will not answer this question. It is a stupid question that staff should answer
easily.

Eric

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Hello Roeland!
>
> Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Since the question "who owns ICANN" so frequently pops up,
> maybe this is an item for ICANN.org's FAQ section?
>
> >From what I as a non-U.S. non-lawyer understand (and I
> hope that U.S. lawyers clarify it), a non-profit
> corporation has no owner, cannot issue shares and cannot
> pay dividends. The Smiley vs. ICANN request for a
> preliminary injunction was sent to C.T. Corporation
> System (http://www.ctcorporation.com), because this
> is ICANN's agent for service of process (something like
> a representative authorized to receive certain
> documents)
> http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C2121683
>
> Oversimplified, you seem to need only Articles of
> Incorporation and an initial Board of Directors or
> alternatively incorporators to start a California
> non-profit public benefit corporation. In this case,
> the incorporators were G.A. Ellis and Clint L. Duran
> (I think lawyers from Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue), and
> the initial Board took over from those incorporators
> at the organizational meeting.
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-25oct98.html
>
> Neither the former incorporators nor the agent own the
> corporation, and there are no shareholders, so the
> question "who owns ICANN" does not seem to make any
> sense. Oversimplified even more (to a point where
> I fear lawyers' responses...), ICANN seems to own
> itself. When it comes to who may spend ICANN's money,
> who may dissolve ICANN, who may change the bylaws
> etc., the answer is clearer: the Board (or, within
> limits, those authorized to do so by the Board).
> So the chain is not broken -- it's simply different
> from a for-profit corporation with owners.
>
> Does that make any sense?
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
> --
> 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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:54:43 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who Owns ICANN

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Who are these individuals?
> 
> Paul Vixie,

See www.vix.com. His best-known projects are maintaining BIND (Berkeley Internet
Name Daemon, a DNS server) and running the Mail Abuse Prevention System with
its RBL (Realtime Blackhole List), an effective spam defense. 

> Vint Cerf
> Paul Montapitiris

A couple of the main designers of the Internet. A check at www.rfc-editor.org
shows the Cerf has written or co-authored a couple of dozen RFCs, going back
to 1981, and Mockapetris wrote all the basic DNS RFCs.

> Kim Hubbard

There's a Kim Hubbard among the authors of RFC 2050 or BCP 12:
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/bcp/bcp12.txt
Address given, as of 1996, is at Network Solutions. 

> Carolyn Chicone
> Greg Crew

I don't know. An RFC author search does not turn them up.
- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 09:22:48 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

On 26 Aug 2001, at 23:00, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:

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

Of course there are, Vany.  In many countries, the bandwidth just 
isn't there to allow higher speed, or areas where phone lines just 
won't give you more than 14.400.  These are the folks that need the 
IRC chat.  It least it is a way to get scribe notes, if slowly.

My point was that anyone who does have an internet connection 
should be afforded a way to participate in all ICANN meetings, 
including any meeting on the agenda.  Those who do not have 
internet access and want it, are another story all together.  ICANN 
can do nothing to provide internet access to all citizens of the 
world.  I would love to see every individual provided with a computer 
and and access, but that is beyond the scope of what we are doing 
here.

ICANN's stakeholders are those who are on the net now and 
concerned with addressing, domain names and protocols.  While 
organizations and governments work to provide access to 
individuals globally, ICANN should make every effort to guarantee 
participation by those who do have access.  

Few people have the means to physically attend f2f meetings.  
These are the people who must be included regardless of 
bandwidth.  It is fortunate that your SO has the capability of 
webcasting via audio.  I hope that you will also have the scribe and 
chat and archives/logs for those who cannot attend.  This is what 
ICANN should provide for all meetings on the agenda.  All 
stakeholders should be able to participate in a meaningful manner 
in the SO meetings as well as the public forums.  That includes 
being able to ask and answer questions just as the audience at 
those meetings do.  Let's not leave out any who wish to participate 
simply becasue of distance.  That's what the net is all about.

With full participation and a fully elected board (with nine at-large 
seats), ICANN could begin to look like something that does 
represent the global community.  Without it, we have a cartel of 
special interests ruling the net and paying lip service to us all.

Btw, in one post it was mentioned that it is hard on those who have 
to attend remotely at 2:00 am.  Yes, it is inconvenient.  I have 
participated in meetings where I had to stay up all night to do so.  
Oh well.  Everyone who wishes to attend will have to plan at some 
time during the year to alter their schedules.  This time, it will be 
during the day for me for the first time. Even when the meetings are 
in MDR, meetings begin three hours earlier for me.  In Yokohama, 
it was twelve hours.  In Melbourne, it was ten or eleven hours. 
That's just the way it goes.  Life is not convenient.

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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 09:29:24 -0400
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who Owns ICANN

your right eric ...

they are stupid questions  !!

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 8:02 AM
Subject: [ga] Who Owns ICANN

> Dear Mr. Meyer and Mr. Svensson,
>
> Very awesome analysis.  But who owns ICANN should be a simple question and
upon an
> answer we can require accountability, because we shall know the king to
which we
> may petition.
>
>
> Does the Postal trust still own ICANN?  Most important is why the board or
staff
> will not answer this question. It is a stupid question that staff should
answer
> easily.

- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:40:10 -0400
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

To all those concerned with Internet Access:

It is not the call of ICANN to take an action as ICANN regarding Internet Access.
ICANN should be sensible to this but is not ICANN task to take an action from its
own mission and/or Bylaws.

In  ICANN participates people and organisations from different backgrounds.  And,
who is really called to take an action regarding providing communications and
internet access are all those people and organisations participating in ICANN
(including government and International Cooperation Agencies) to reach such
purposes.

For example:   There is the X country that doesn't have a ccTLD yet.   ICANN will
not search neither move a finger for such X country to have Internet Access nor an
ISP.  But once, the X country has internet access and an ISP that engage in
development of the internet in such country, then such ISP comes to ICANN to request
for the delegation of a ccTLD that corresponds to such X country and then ICANN
facilities all information needed and redelegates such ccTLD.
Maybe in the process, an ICANN Board member or a GA member or a constituency member
realize that they need more help in their connectivity and setting up a ccTLD...then
such person in the name of his/her organization offers their help and cooperation.

Here this means, that call to contribute with development of means to give people
more and more access to internet, is a task of everyone here as persons and
organizations, as governments, as telcos, as ISPs, as bussines, as non-commercials,
etc...
But don't expect that ICANN begins to take an action in this.

However, ICANN as such, should be sensible to limitations for those wanting to
contribute with this process by using technology that is of easy and requires low
bandwith access, for not limit such contributions.   Also ICANN may voluntarily
contribute with Internet Accessibility by donating money or searching amongst its
members who wants to make contribution in this issue to those organizations that are
engaged primarily and its main task is to allow access to Internet to more people.

Those wanting to deal with the Social aspect of the Internet, please refer to the
following website:
http://www.istf.org   This is the Internet Societal Task Force.  Internet
Accesibility Issues and Internet for All al dealt within this group.    I must say
that people as Vinton Cerf and Alejandro Pisanty are members of the ISTF and they
are really concern about Internet Accessibility issue.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #706
************************