Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #707
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, August 27 2001           Volume 01 : Number 707

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

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:51:11 -0400
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Lia and all:

Facts:

ICANN provides GA meeting, NC meeting, ICANN Board meeting and Public Forum, the following:

        - Webcast of meetings

        - Scribes

        - Chat (I don't know if uses IRC or other chat) during the meetings

        - Archive of minutes and webcast accesible from cyber.law.hardvard.edu

NOTE:  Constituencies meetings are not provided with this.  If they want all of this provided by the same who provides

webcasting, etc, constituencies would have to pay.  In fact, constituencies pays and/or search

sponsors of the GA and NC meeting webcasting.

Cheers

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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 06:47:57 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who Owns ICANN

Thank you Mr. Stubbs,

Ken Stubbs wrote:

> your right eric ...
>

That would be *you are right eric, or the contraction form, you're right
eric...but I like how you phrased it anyway, it indicates that I have a right,
and I think I do.

>
> they are stupid questions  !!

So if the questions are so stupid what are the stupid answers?  I will give you
a stupid one hundred dollars if you can show me stupid proof as to who really
and legally owns ICANN.

Stupid enough for you?

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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 15:39:04 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

On 11:42 27/08/01, Dassa said:
>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 agree with you. I would even say that the F2F meetings and conference 
calls should only be private in preparation of online confronted meetings. 
This is what happens in a Parlmiament with public debates. Our system is 
only that public debates are on-line.

Remark: time difference is not a problem, on-line debates are async. It 
gives a lot of time to think. The most interesting feature we discussed and 
started implementing at the WG-R is the position link. People present their 
positions on a page and try to reduce the differences. Everyone may see and 
participate. They work on real stuff towards a consensus: that they agree 
under certain terms or that they disagree and can report a clear 
presentation of their disagreements.

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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:15:26 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

On 20:54 27/08/01, [email-masked] said:
>So the chain is not broken -- it's simply different
>from a for-profit corporation with owners.

no-Member organizations were said "dead-hand" ownership in France at least.
They were abolished by the French revolution as dangerous for social 
stability, the current ownership being accountable to no one. Temple was 
dead hand.

In ICANN's case Users, Staff members and contractors as Jones Days and NSI 
have de facto longer terms than the "owners" making their objectives the 
ICANN objectives.

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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 07:47:57 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

[email-masked] wrote:

> Is the crucial question not what does ICANN own?

If not, it is certainly another good one.  Does it own all
domain names, so that it can create a UDRP and a
required Registrar-Registrant contract empowering
trademark owners, and hence effectively control who
gets which ones?

Bill Lovell

>
>
> 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

- --

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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 11:47:53 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: (Fwd) Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Whereas ICANN arranges for the logistics for webcasting the meetings Vany
lists below, the actual funding for that has come from donations.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 8:51 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Lia and all:

Facts:

ICANN provides GA meeting, NC meeting, ICANN Board meeting and Public Forum,
the following:

        - Webcast of meetings

        - Scribes

        - Chat (I don't know if uses IRC or other chat) during the meetings

        - Archive of minutes and webcast accesible from
cyber.law.hardvard.edu

NOTE:  Constituencies meetings are not provided with this.  If they want all
of this provided by the same who provides

webcasting, etc, constituencies would have to pay.  In fact, constituencies
pays and/or search

sponsors of the GA and NC meeting webcasting.

Cheers

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
- --
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 12:06:00 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] UDRP Task Force Selected

Dear members:  

The UDRP Task Force has been selected:

Business Constituency:      Sarah Deutsch (NA)
ccTLD Constituency:         Neil Duncan Dundas (AF)
gTLD Constituency:          Jeff Neuman (NA)
IP Constituency:                J. Scott Evans (NA)
ISP Constituency:               Antonio Harris (LAC)
NCDNH Constituency:     Michael Froomkin (NA)
Registrar Constituency:     Michael Palage (NA)
Complainant:                    Katrina Burchell (EU)
CPR Panelist:                   M. Scott Donahey (NA)
CPR Provider:                   F. Peter Phillips (NA)
eResolution Panelist:       Ethan Katsh (NA)
eResolution Provider:       Dr. Joelle Thibault (NA)
NAF Panelist    :                       The Honorable James A. Carmody (NA)
NAF Provider :                  Tim Cole (NA)
Respondent :                    John Berryhill (NA)
WIPO Panelist:                  Maxim Waldbaum (NA)
WIPO Provider:                  Erik Wilbers (EU)
GA Member:                      Dan Steinberg (NA)
Independent ADR expert:    Joon Hyung Hong (AP)
Ind. academic expert:         Graeme Dinwoodie (EU)

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/doc00022.doc
- --
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 09:22:07 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Motion for new moderators and some leadership from  the Chair

Monday, Monday, August 27, 2001, 2:09:05 AM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

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

Oh yeah, that's practical.

Shall we tell the abusers to limit their abuses to no more than 5 a
month also?

The solution is for people to abide by the rules of civil discourse,
and in the absence of that, for moderators to act swiftly and
judiciously.

Apparently the list moderators may lack the tools necessary to carry
out their decisions.  If that is the case, then perhaps the system
needs to be changed.

- -- 
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:22:12 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Hello Chuck,

I would question why all such funding that you describe must come from 
donations.

If one of the "Continuing Priorities" in the 2001-2002 Budget is to "Conduct 
an active education and outreach program that supports public participation 
in ICANN policy-making activities, including public meetings, electronic 
forums, publications (hardcopy or electronic), accessible website etc.", then 
the question should really be, "Why isn't this covered by the appropriate 
portion of the ICANN budget?"

- --
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 09:29:22 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Who Owns ICANN

Monday, Monday, August 27, 2001, 6:29:24 AM, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> your right eric ...

> they are stupid questions  !!

I agree.

There are no ownership issues with regard to non-profit entities.

- -- 
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 18:20:41 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

On 2001-08-27 16:15:26 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>no-Member organizations were said "dead-hand" ownership in France 
>at least.

Which does have precisely what effect in reality, when applied to 
ICANN?

In fact, I seem to recall that you brought up this topic on 
icann-europe in December 2000:

| From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
| To: [email-masked]
| Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 15:20:47 +0100
| Subject: [icann-eu] Does the ICANN legally exist (this is not a joke)?
| 
| Gentlemen,
| I asked a complex legal question to Louis Touton three 
| days ago without response yet. I suppose I may now publicly post it 
| on different lists as it interests the laws the whole world.
| 
| The question is to lawyers from every country:
| 
| "ICANN being a no member corporation, does ICANN exist according the 
| laws of your country and if not may a corporation of your country 
| enter into legally valid relations with it?"
| 
| I would like to build a table indicating the countries where 
| relations are no problem, the countries where relation are not 
| possible (if any) and the countries where this is grey area. I will 
| publish that table.
| 
| Thank you for your cooperation on this interesting issue.
|
| [...]

| From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
| To: Mike Roberts <[email-masked]>
| Cc: [email-masked]
| Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 01:30:38 +0100
| Subject: Re: [icann-eu] Members of California non-profit corporations
| 
| [...]
| 
| 1. contracts and relations with 'no dead hand' countries will 
| actually turn being private contracts. Since the US courts also 
| accept to consider the foreign laws when ruling international 
| affairs, a contract signed between the ICANN and a 'no dead hand' 
| country will most probably broken by a US court refereeing itself to 
| the foreign low because its text would be analyzed as of commercial 
| nature. The tax impact is also to be considered since if declared 
| being private the money exchanges will be deemed at the best as 
| between the Chairs of the tow parties. Obviously being private the 
| contract will not be binding the ccTLDs and could not be accepted by 
| the GAC.
| 
| [...]

Since, according to your own messages from last year, it's not 
relevant what those who have no legal training say on this topic: 
Where's the professional advice you talked about back then?  Where's 
the legal professional to back your assertions from last year?  And 
if there's none, what is the point of bringing that topic up on the 
GA list, and what relevance does it have?

PS: Don't bother to reply privately.  I'm asking because I want a 
_public_ answer from you on this.  You're a candidate, remember?
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
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 09:44:55 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [rat-hole] Motion for new moderators and some leadership from  th e Chair

Now that I have gotten used to the style differences, I think that Danny is
doing an adequate job. As for the list moderators, they are doing an
excellent job, IMHO.

Anyone who disagrees is welcome to run in the next election. We must balance
the disruption of frequent impeachments vs. actually getting something done.
As things are finally settling down to getting some work done, I am loath to
disrupt the infrastructure.

|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 9:22 AM
|> 
|> Monday, Monday, August 27, 2001, 2:09:05 AM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
|> 
|> > May be could we limit the number of mails to ga-abuse?
|> > 5 per month?
|> 
|> Oh yeah, that's practical.
|> 
|> Shall we tell the abusers to limit their abuses to no more than 5 a
|> month also?
|> 
|> The solution is for people to abide by the rules of civil discourse,
|> and in the absence of that, for moderators to act swiftly and
|> judiciously.
|> 
|> Apparently the list moderators may lack the tools necessary to carry
|> out their decisions.  If that is the case, then perhaps the system
|> needs to be changed.

- --
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 13:39:22 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Danny,

Such expenses could certainly come directly from ICANN's funds.  But it is
important to keep in mind that the fees ICANN collects must be raised to
accommodate the increased costs.  Donations have served as a way to keep the
budget lower.

I think it is important to keep in mind that ICANN does not have any funds
except for what it collects in fees.  So unless there is a decrease in costs
in another area, for every increase in expenditures, there needs to be a
corresponding increase in fees.  Right now the majority of fees are paid by
registries and registrars so ultimately the fees are paid by registrants.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 12:22 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Hello Chuck,

I would question why all such funding that you describe must come from 
donations.

If one of the "Continuing Priorities" in the 2001-2002 Budget is to "Conduct

an active education and outreach program that supports public participation 
in ICANN policy-making activities, including public meetings, electronic 
forums, publications (hardcopy or electronic), accessible website etc.",
then 
the question should really be, "Why isn't this covered by the appropriate 
portion of the ICANN budget?"
- --
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 14:37:02 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

On 26 Aug 2001, at 21:43, William S. Lovell wrote:

> 
> 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.  

If we use your argument, then who is responsible for providing 
access to PBS - a television for everyone?  Who is responsible for
providing telephone service and equipment to every individual?  While
we're at it, should everyone be provided a PDA or cell phone or pager
because it is important to have one for emergency communication?  

While I would like to see every home have a computer and access 
to the net and everyone have a telephone at the very least, I do not
believe that the agencies and non-profits that set the protocols have
the responsibility to provide those things.  Half the people who do
not have computers or internet access do not want it.  Many people
today still don't have telephones or television.  Of those there are
many who don't want them either.

To expect ICANN to provide internet access for anyone who wants 
it is going far beyond what a technical coordination body is meant to
do.  It goes beyond its mandate with policy as it is.  I think what is
much more essential is to educate the public that is connected and
provide a means for access to decision making.  Providing
infrastructure and connectivity for the public is a totally different
endeavor unrelated to ICANN.

I would certainly applaud an endeavor to connect the world via the
internet and provide to anyone who wants it the connectivity and
equipment.  Hopefully there are and will be organizations dedictated
to doing just that.  I, for one, would try to join such an
organization if I have the energy and time to so.  However, I
sincerely hope that does not become just another expansion of the
ICANN picture.

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 campaign to get more people to participate in the GA is a great
idea.  As a matter of fact, if only 10% of those on the net with
domain name issues were to become involved, the GA would be so large
that this list could not accommodate them all.  A mail list does not
require audio/video or high speed connectivity.

If all the potential at-large memberswho presently have some kind of
access  were to become involved in that membership, we would achieve
what we are after - users having a serious influence on the technical
coordination of the net.

> 
> (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?)

Well, we know that it was not and that it became commercialized 
in the last decade.  Perhaps we need to repeat it more often so 
that those who were not part of the net prior to the mid 90's will be
more enlightened.  It seems that too many people think the internet is
the WWW.

> 
> 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."

Don't knock IRC chat, Bill.  It has provided a means of direct 
communication that literally anyone can use with any speed 
connection.  It doesn't have to be fancy to be an important 
application.  It has certainly enhanced the webcasts and, if 
necessary, could be used for many meetings where webcasting is 
not feasible.

Then there are news groups.

Not everything has to be the latest in high tech to involve the vast
majority of people with stakes in ICANN.

> 
> (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.)

As it happens, Bill, I made having at least a bare bones computer and
connectivity a priority over many other things that some would think
more important.  It was my choice to not have other amenities so I
could have this one.  Others can make the same choice.  I am far down
the ladder when it comes to other things that you might find critical
to your existence. 

I really think we are going too far afield with talk of internet
access "for the masses" because almost anyone can have it (at least in
the US)  if it means going to a cybercafe or library.  Just as not
everyone can have a television, a car or a telephone because it is not
provided to them by a government agency or other org., not everyone
will have his own computer and/or personal access to the internet for
the same reason.  My daughter went through four years of college and
part of law school without having her own computer and internet
account.  Having one has made her life a bit easier, but until she got
one of her own, she used the ones at school. Her life did not stop
because she was not involved with the internet.

I guess my point is that not everyone must be involved.  However,
those who do have a stake in ICANN policies should have a means to
participate.  ICANN should ensure that every means of communication is
available to those with any level of connectivity.   For meetings that
could mean IRC chat for every part of the meetings, complete
transcripts of all meetings, news groups, mail lists - whatever it
takes.

Leah

> 
> Bill Lovell
> 

- --
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 14:48:08 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] RE: GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Dear Chuck,

I am doing my best to try to understand the finances involved.  Perhaps you 
can clear up some misconceptions that I might have.  

I am given to understand that ICANN has been invoicing the gTLD registrars at 
a rate of $535,000 each quarter.  According to the first quarter "State of 
the Domain" report, there were 3,033,933 new registrations during the 
quarter.  This would amount to about 18 cents paid to ICANN for each such new 
domain registration.  

Knowing that, at the moment, the two largest registrars represent 62% of 
total registrations, and that both charge $35 for domain name registration, I 
would tend to conclude that these registrars are not suffering an undue 
financial burden as a result of ICANN's fee structure.  

I somehow doubt that registrants would object to a few more pennies being 
assessed if service could be improved, and I am sure that the registrars 
could probably afford it without the need to pass on additional charges to 
the registrants.

Our internal committees, the Supporting Organizations, need to be properly 
funded if they are to do an effective job for ICANN.  

If just one cent were added to the current fee structure, this would be 
sufficient to cover the DNSO's current operating budget.  Please let me know 
if my assumptions are incorrect.

- --
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 14:55:48 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: GA/DNSO Funding Issues

The registrars are billed a variable amount based on their proportionate
share of names in the database at the end of a quarter.

It is not my place to judge whether or not registrars are suffering any
undue cost burdens, but I would say that I have been amazed over the years
at how little the average person understands about operating a registrar.
For example, how much does it cost to offer telephone customer service.
Industry estimates suggest that one to three live calls could easily cost
$35.  And customer service is just one cost area.

Also, it seems to me that it is really easy to spend money that someone else
is paying.  That I think is a not so desirable trend.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 2:48 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Dear Chuck,

I am doing my best to try to understand the finances involved.  Perhaps you 
can clear up some misconceptions that I might have.  

I am given to understand that ICANN has been invoicing the gTLD registrars
at 
a rate of $535,000 each quarter.  According to the first quarter "State of 
the Domain" report, there were 3,033,933 new registrations during the 
quarter.  This would amount to about 18 cents paid to ICANN for each such
new 
domain registration.  

Knowing that, at the moment, the two largest registrars represent 62% of 
total registrations, and that both charge $35 for domain name registration,
I 
would tend to conclude that these registrars are not suffering an undue 
financial burden as a result of ICANN's fee structure.  

I somehow doubt that registrants would object to a few more pennies being 
assessed if service could be improved, and I am sure that the registrars 
could probably afford it without the need to pass on additional charges to 
the registrants.

Our internal committees, the Supporting Organizations, need to be properly 
funded if they are to do an effective job for ICANN.  

If just one cent were added to the current fee structure, this would be 
sufficient to cover the DNSO's current operating budget.  Please let me know

if my assumptions are incorrect.

- --
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 21:05:43 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ASO+PSO Directors [Was: Re: [ga] french candidate Eric Jonvel]

Apologies. Roberto is right.
I was so sure due to mails received from PSO/ASO mailing lists that I did 
not check.
I just spent a lot of time trying to understand which meeting I confused with.
(Prague? rings a bell? or is it Elzeihmer?).
Apologies again.
Jefsey

On 12:42 27/08/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
>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).

- --
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 17:47:03 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] $ 6 why?

Could someone tell me why is the DN costing $ 6 and not $ 10 or $ 4 in the 
new TLD contracts?
Some idea of the reationale to contractually determine such a price in the 
body of the contract?
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #707
************************