Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #710
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, August 29 2001          Volume 01 : Number 710

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

Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:09:37 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Hi.

It was my intention to post a message to communicate my frustration for the 
lack of progress of the Review Task Force, which indicates, IMHO, the lack 
of willingness and/or capability by the DNSO to proactively reform itself.
Then I read the pending messages, and in particular the different documents 
related to AtLarge studies. These support "de facto" the 
Individual/Registrants proposal and implicitely identify problems in the 
current DNSO.
I am now wondering whether the Task Force itself is not overcome by events. 
Why argue on the criteria for the creation of a Constituency within this 
DNSO when the alternative can be a role in a different SO?

I think that this should be a central point in the next days, 
pre-Montevideo. What do GA members think? Does the idea of an ALSO obsolesce 
the request for an IDNH Constituency?

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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:17:15 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALSC report released

      Well, here we go.  First reduce the number of board seats for the at-large and limit membership to domain name holders...  This is right off the top, without having to read the report in depth, the scope of the at-l
arge is reduced and changed, defeating its meaning.

Are the only stakeholders in the at-large domain name registrants?  Not by a long shot.  ICANN encompasses much more than domain names and registrants are by far NOT the only stakeholders.  What about IP addressing and pr
otocols?  What about users who do not have domain names but are affected by ICANN policies?  There have already been cases of suits over 3LDs.  These are domains that are established many times by ISPs for use by their cu
stomers.  These "customers" would have no voice in the at-large.  By limiting membership to domain name registrants, it cuts out a huge community of stakeholders - users of the internet in the millions and soon to be in t
he billions.

By reducing the number of board seats, the power brokers succeed mightily in reducing the purpose of the White Paper and the purpose of establishing ICANN in the first place.  It is a further perversion, and a grave one.

By making the at-large an SO, it removes the "membership" provision and the power of the at-large to influence policy decisions.  SOs function in an advisory capacity.  The at-large must be a membership body within ICANN,
 with all rights of membership, to include ALL stakeholders.

The ALSC speaks of the cost of having an open membership.  Establishing a $10 or $15/year membership fee would certainly cover those costs.  In addition, registries and registrars could add $.05 to the amount paid to ICAN
N targeted specifically for the at-large.  There is no excuse to limit the at-large due to finances.  It is supposed to be a bottom-up organization, remember?  That makes the at-large a priority, not an after thought.

This is not an unexpected result of the ALSC, since there is no representation of at-large membership on the committee and the at-large was not able to actively participate on any meaninful level as a result.

Anything less than an open at-large membership with membership rights in the non-profit corporation as defined by law is unaccepable.  Restricting membership to domain name holders is a further perversion since there are 
many more stakeholders in the internet community.

I hope there will be a groundswell of participation to ensure that ALL stakeholders are represented in the at-large and that "membership" will be a mandatory provision for those stakeholders.  If not, the White Paper will
 have been defeated and ICANN will still be ruled by a 2/3 majority 
of special interests - not those of the at-large.  IOW, nothing will 
have changed.
 
Leah

On 28 Aug 2001, at 6:34, [email-masked] wrote:

> http://www.atlargestudy.org/draft_final.shtml
> --
> 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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:31:57 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Roberto, or anyone else please correct my misimpression if it is one.

What is on the table now between the ALSO, Individuals and the current DNSO GA
is absolutely no representation for those without domain names registered in
their own names. (I purposefully leave out the proviso for membership in the GA
due to WG involvement as we seem to have switched to TFs)

If this is so, it is a very sad day for dotcommoners.

Also I ask all of you fine workers that insisted the make-up of the Individuals
could exclude non-domain nameholders because they would be covered by the
At-Large to act responsibly with this change.  I was always under the impression
that 85% of the net usage would indicate stockholders.

Sincerely,
Eric

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Hi.
>
> It was my intention to post a message to communicate my frustration for the
> lack of progress of the Review Task Force, which indicates, IMHO, the lack
> of willingness and/or capability by the DNSO to proactively reform itself.
> Then I read the pending messages, and in particular the different documents
> related to AtLarge studies. These support "de facto" the
> Individual/Registrants proposal and implicitely identify problems in the
> current DNSO.
> I am now wondering whether the Task Force itself is not overcome by events.
> Why argue on the criteria for the creation of a Constituency within this
> DNSO when the alternative can be a role in a different SO?
>
> I think that this should be a central point in the next days,
> pre-Montevideo. What do GA members think? Does the idea of an ALSO obsolesce
> the request for an IDNH Constituency?
>
> 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-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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:32:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> It was my intention to post a message to communicate my frustration for the 
> lack of progress of the Review Task Force, which indicates, IMHO, the lack 
> of willingness and/or capability by the DNSO to proactively reform itself.
> Then I read the pending messages, and in particular the different documents 
> related to AtLarge studies. These support "de facto" the 
> Individual/Registrants proposal and implicitely identify problems in the 
> current DNSO.
> I am now wondering whether the Task Force itself is not overcome by events. 
> Why argue on the criteria for the creation of a Constituency within this 
> DNSO when the alternative can be a role in a different SO?
> I think that this should be a central point in the next days, 
> pre-Montevideo. What do GA members think? Does the idea of an ALSO obsolesce 
> the request for an IDNH Constituency?

	Something really interesting in the ALSC report is the concept,
repeated several times, that the ICANN Board should be set up to reflect a
three-way "balance among developers, providers and users."  That's the
basis for the ALSC's proposal that the ALSO should get exactly six seats
on the Board: It gets one-third of the Board because its function is to
represent users, who are one of the three groups entitled to
representation.

	It's worth thinking about what this means for the *other* entities
that currently select ICANN Board members, though. If we take this
"balance" seriously, then it suggests that the "developers of Internet
standards" -- that is, the PSO -- get six seats, and that the "providers
of the domain name and address system" get six.  Who are those
"providers," though?  Presumably, they include the (IP address) Regional
Internet Registries currently represented in the ASO, and the domain-name
registries and registrars currently represented in the DNSO.  But they
*don't* include the business constituency, or the IP constituency, or the
ISPs, or the non-commercial organizations' constituency.  None of those
folks are providers of the domain-name system; rather, they're users of
that system.  And user representation comes through the At-Large
Supporting Organization.  So their representation, under the report's
three-way split, should come not through the DNSO but through their
participation in ALSO elections.

	To be sure, the report doesn't say that explicitly.  Rather, it
says: "We assume that the DNSO will reorganize to achieve a more effective
structure and decision-making process, and therefore did not suggest a
specific assignment of the non-At-Large seats."  But I think that for
better or worse, that approach (which was the explicit basis for "Option
A" in the committee's options template) is implicit in at least some of
the report's language.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:18:33 -0700
From: "Tim Langdell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] XTNS Launches 4 new domains

FYI people. XTNS just launched 4 new domains 

www.xtns.net

- --
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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:53:17 -0700
From: "Mark C . Langston" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 05:09:37PM +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> pre-Montevideo. What do GA members think? Does the idea of an ALSO obsolesce 
> the request for an IDNH Constituency?

No.  The existence (or not) of an SO in no way changes the necessity
for individual domain name holders to have a voice within the DNSO
formal structure.

the ICANN SOs and the formal structure of the DNSO are two separate
things.  SOs have little if any inreach into each others' processes
(e.g., the impact of the PSO or ASO on the normal business of the
DNSO).  It would be ill-advised to forsake an IDNH within the DNSO due
to the existence (or proposed existence) of another SO.

- -- 
Mark C. Langston
[email-masked]
Systems & Network Admin
http://www.bitshift.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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:58:03 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Towards Improved Representation in ICANN

Well, it's certainly a way to eliminate the at-large and replace it
with the IDNHC.  This is definitely NOT what the majority of net 
users
want and NOT what is meant by the at-large in the White Paper.  
The
At-large is NOT to be a part of the DNSO.  It is to be the AT-
LARGE
and deal with all aspects of ICANN - all the SOs and separate from
them.

What else will be suggested to pervert the White Paper and 
mandate for ICANN?

Leah

On 28 Aug 2001, at 8:47, Mike Roberts wrote:

> At 23:01 -0400 8/27/01, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Dear Mike,
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >What role do you see for the General Assembly in your six-SO model?
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Danny Younger
> 
> The ALSC report makes a cogent case for the establishment of an ALSO
> based on individual domain name holders.  I think the high energy
> level of the GA could be used well in getting the ALSO off the
> ground and making it - especially its Council - a success.
> 
> The report also says the committee thinks ways should be found to
> "jump start" the ALSO.  The GA has a nucleus of people who could
> contribute to that.
> 
> - Mike
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> 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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:08:33 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On 28 Aug 2001, at 17:09, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Hi.
> 
<snip>

 Why argue on the criteria
> for the creation of a Constituency within this DNSO when the
> alternative can be a role in a different SO?
> 
> I think that this should be a central point in the next days, 
> pre-Montevideo. What do GA members think? Does the idea of an ALSO
> obsolesce the request for an IDNH Constituency?

Absolutely NOT, Roberto.  The IDNHC is a critical component of 
the DNSO, while the at-large is an all-encompassing group that 
includes all users of the internet and those concerned with all 
aspects, not just domain names.

In the domain names arena, the individuals are the ones totally 
unrepresented - have no voice and no meaningful input.  I sincerely 
hope you will not further pervert the intent of the white paper by 
supporting the notion that the at-large become a part of the DNSO 
and leave the other critically important aspects of ICANN with no 
representation from the greater community.

They are, in fact, two very separate bodies.

Leah

> 
> 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-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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:28:39 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Internet Users

- --Boundary_(ID_3oPaDQKHVPPl9inZuW0KgA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Just a few snippets from the ICANN MoU with the DoC.  I did not think to
suggest to the ALSC that they read this document.  The vast majority of
Internet Users are not holders of Domain Names and have just been
arbitrarily and unjustifiably injured via exclusion in elections and
policy matters

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm

2. Neither Party, either in the DNS Project or in any act related to the
DNS Project, shall act unjustifiably or arbitrarily to injure particular
persons or entities or particular categories of persons or entities.

3. Private, Bottom-Up Coordination

This Agreement is intended to result in the design, development, and
testing of a private coordinating process that is flexible and able to
move rapidly enough to meet the changing needs of the Internet and of
Internet users. This Agreement is intended to foster the development of
a private sector management system that, as far as possible, reflects a
system of bottom-up management.

4. Representation.

This Agreement promotes the technical management of the DNS in a manner
that reflects the global and functional diversity of Internet users and
their needs. This Agreement is intended to promote the design,
development, and testing of mechanisms to solicit public input, both
domestic and international, into a private-sector decision making
process. These mechanisms will promote the flexibility needed to adapt
to changes in the composition of the Internet user community and their
needs.
__________
The Study Draft is long but out of the executive summary we find these
points that address my concern of defining and excluding Internet Users

    Nor do we believe that users' interests can be properly represented
through a system that relies on e-mail addresses to identify
individuals; such an approach is administratively and financially
unworkable on a global scale for a sizeable electorate, and fraught with
potential dangers ranging from capture to outright fraud. Furthermore,
experience has already shown that it is costly and difficult to manage
and does not effectively handle many people in regions that use
non-Latin script or have inefficient postal systems.

       Instead, we have found the requirement that members hold a domain
name to be a useful way of identifying individuals, reaching them
(initially) in a decentralized way through registrars and ensuring their
direct interest in the Internet infrastructure that is ICANN's central
concern. (Any e-mail address holder can acquire a domain name at minimal
cost, but with some effort. To help ensure that this is not an
impediment to those who want a domain name and want to be an At-Large
member, the ALSC suggests that the ICANN community identify and
encourage organizations that could provide appropriate assistance to
such users.)

       We believe the approach with the best chance for consensus
support is addressing Internet users' interests by organizing ICANN
along stakeholder interest or functional lines of developers, providers
and users, by defining At-Large members as "individual domain name
holders" (since they have a strong and tangible vested interest in ICANN
activities, not just the Internet in general),
_______

Almost identical logic was used to prevent freed slaves(verification of
ID) from voting, women from voting (only the husband who supporter her
had a vested interest) and non-property owners (if you did not pay
property tax you had no right to be involved).  But not to worry we can
buy the right to participate at a "nominal cost" paid to a registrar.

Sorry for the length but if this comes to fruition against the
dotcommoner then you will not have to read my dribble anymore.

Sincerely,
Eric

- --Boundary_(ID_3oPaDQKHVPPl9inZuW0KgA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Just a few snippets from the ICANN MoU with the DoC.&nbsp; I did not think
to suggest to the ALSC that they read this document.&nbsp; The vast majority
of Internet Users are not holders of Domain Names and have just been arbitrarily
and unjustifiably injured via exclusion in elections and policy matters
<p><a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm">http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm</a>
<br>&nbsp;
<p>2. Neither Party, either in the DNS Project or in any act related to
the DNS Project, shall act unjustifiably or arbitrarily to injure particular
persons or entities or <b>particular categories of persons or entities.</b>
<p>3. Private, Bottom-Up Coordination
<p>This Agreement is intended to result in the design, development, and
testing of a private coordinating process that is flexible and able to
move rapidly enough to meet the changing needs of the Internet and of<b>
Internet users.</b> This Agreement is intended to foster the development
of a private sector management system that, as far as possible, reflects
a system of bottom-up management.
<p>4. Representation.
<p>This Agreement promotes the technical management of the DNS in a manner
that reflects the global and functional diversity of Internet users and
their needs. This Agreement is intended to promote the design, development,
and testing of mechanisms to solicit public input, both domestic and international,
into a private-sector decision making process. <b>These mechanisms will
promote the flexibility needed to adapt to changes in the composition of
the Internet user community and their needs.</b>
<br>__________
<br>The Study Draft is long but out of the executive summary we find these
points that address my concern of defining and excluding Internet Users
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Nor do we believe that users' interests can be properly
represented through a system that relies on e-mail addresses to identify
individuals; such an approach is administratively and financially unworkable
on a global scale for a sizeable electorate, and fraught with potential
dangers ranging from capture to outright fraud. Furthermore, experience
has already shown that it is costly and difficult to manage and does not
effectively handle many people in regions that use non-Latin script or
have inefficient postal systems.
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Instead, we have found the requirement
that members hold a domain name to be a useful way of identifying individuals,
reaching them (initially) in a decentralized way through registrars and
ensuring their direct interest in the Internet infrastructure that is ICANN's
central concern. (Any e-mail address holder can acquire a domain name at
minimal cost, but with some effort. To help ensure that this is not an
impediment to those who want a domain name and want to be an At-Large member,
the ALSC suggests that the ICANN community identify and encourage organizations
that could provide appropriate assistance to such users.)
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; We believe the approach with the
best chance for consensus support is addressing Internet users' interests
by organizing ICANN along stakeholder interest or functional lines of developers,
providers and users, by defining At-Large members as "individual domain
name holders" (since they have a strong and tangible vested interest in
ICANN activities, not just the Internet in general),
<br>_______
<p>Almost identical logic was used to prevent freed slaves(verification
of ID) from voting, women from voting (only the husband who supporter her
had a vested interest) and non-property owners (if you did not pay property
tax you had no right to be involved).&nbsp; But not to worry we can buy
the right to participate at a "nominal cost" paid to a registrar.
<p>Sorry for the length but if this comes to fruition against the dotcommoner
then you will not have to read my dribble anymore.
<p>Sincerely,
<br>Eric</html>

- --Boundary_(ID_3oPaDQKHVPPl9inZuW0KgA)--
- --
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: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 07:27:45 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:53:17 -0700, "Mark C . Langston"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 05:09:37PM +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
>> pre-Montevideo. What do GA members think? Does the idea of an ALSO obsolesce 
>> the request for an IDNH Constituency?
>
>No.  The existence (or not) of an SO in no way changes the necessity
>for individual domain name holders to have a voice within the DNSO
>formal structure.

I agree.  Under ICANN bylaws gTLD policy comes from the DNSO and
individual registrants are a 100% legitimate interest there.

Obviously we should look at the proposed role and function of an at
large SO to prevent overlap but in no way should we say there is now
no need for individual registrants to be represented within the DNSO
because of this.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:49:34 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ALSO vs IDNH

|> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 10:10 AM

|> I think that this should be a central point in the next days, 
|> pre-Montevideo. What do GA members think? Does the idea of 
|> an ALSO obsolesce 
|> the request for an IDNH Constituency?

No, I don't think so. For starters, ALSO is different from DNSO. IDNH
specifically represents Domain Name Holders, as opposed to generic Internet
users (whom may not give a fig about the details of DNS). Yes, IDNH members
may also be ALSO members but the converse may not be true. From a marketing
perspective, the ALSO is the audience that the IDNH is playing to (which is
probably the closest approximation we will get to, but not a perfect one and
the nature of the performance varies).

- --
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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:56:47 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Best Practices/ who objects?  I do !!

Tuesday, Tuesday, August 28, 2001, 6:17:11 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi William, Eric and All

> Despite repeated requests, and a strong vote to the same effect,

There was no vote.

> I note that
> people are still discussing list rules, best practices and all sorts of
> procedural issues on the [ga] list.

> They are also clogging up the [ga-abuse] list with discussion about
> complaints procedures.

> Could you please take all of that stuff to [ga-rules].

No.

- -- 
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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:23:42 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Best Practices/ who objects?  I do !!

|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 12:57 PM
|> 
|> Tuesday, Tuesday, August 28, 2001, 6:17:11 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

|> > They are also clogging up the [ga-abuse] list with discussion about
|> > complaints procedures.
|> 
|> > Could you please take all of that stuff to [ga-rules].
|> 
|> No.

Why not? Do you even have a reason?
- --
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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:39:34 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Best Practices/ who objects?  I do !!

Tuesday, Tuesday, August 28, 2001, 1:23:42 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

|>> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|>> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 12:57 PM
|>> 
|>> Tuesday, Tuesday, August 28, 2001, 6:17:11 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

|>> > They are also clogging up the [ga-abuse] list with discussion about
|>> > complaints procedures.
|>> 
|>> > Could you please take all of that stuff to [ga-rules].
|>> 
|>> No.

> Why not? Do you even have a reason?

As I have said before, I don't believe that segregation of issues to
sublists is a good idea, and any such co-operation with Patrick's
little sublists is completely voluntary.

- -- 
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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:04:28 -0700
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Best Practices/ who objects?  I do !!

William X Walsh writes:
 > Tuesday, Tuesday, August 28, 2001, 1:23:42 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
 > 
 > |>> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
 > |>> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 12:57 PM
 > |>> 
 > |>> Tuesday, Tuesday, August 28, 2001, 6:17:11 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
 > 
 > |>> > They are also clogging up the [ga-abuse] list with discussion about
 > |>> > complaints procedures.
 > |>> 
 > |>> > Could you please take all of that stuff to [ga-rules].
 > |>> 
 > |>> No.
 > 
 > > Why not? Do you even have a reason?
 > 
 > As I have said before, I don't believe that segregation of issues to
 > sublists is a good idea, and any such co-operation with Patrick's
 > little sublists is completely voluntary.

I am going to speak up on this issue one more time.  The so-called
"sublists" are nothing more than a place to carry out informal
discussions, similar to "hallway conferences".  Unless and until there
is a formal vote on the matter, they have no formal standing in the GA
arena.  WXW is completely right and the "chair" is completely wrong.
There is no reason to participate in the informal discussion list if you
do not wish to participate.  They are in the process of tabling their
informal proposals in an attempt to formalize them.  These proposals are
nothing more than proposals, no matter how many adjectives the proposers
choose to label them with (there is nothing "best" about these
proposals; they are simply someone's idea of one way to proceed and are
not the best or worst of anything.)

It is very helpful to continue to carry the discussion on the main ga
list, now that the proposers are ready to move forward.  The main list
is the only official forum for the ga and thus, it is the only place to
formally debate the pros and cons of the proposal.

/Joe
- --
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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 23:56:15 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Position Statement

I have read the ALSC document.

Without any real advantage to the cause they were to investigate the ALSC 
does not respect the consensus embodied by the White Paper and the MoU, 
limiting the Internet Participants representation to less than one third of 
the BoD.

It uses, as a technical gadget and a filter of doubtful result, the very 
core of the Internet which are the Registrants, their much demanded and 
awaited representation and their payments.

It adds the Indian region as I much asked for in here, but without China 
and Eastern Europe all the existing rules of seat distribution on a 
geographical basis are unballanced without real advantage..

It imposes on Internet stakeholders of every nature and revenues the 
additional charge of a Domain Name and of an additional Member fee, as to 
replace the disputed "pay to help" by "one dollar one vote".

It leads to real dangers for the stability of the entire ICANN as being 
detrimental to the ccTLDs which should have been - as LICs legitimate 
animators - the privildeged partners of the @large structure and to the BC 
and NCDNHC users constituencies of which the role becomes uncertain while 
they should have benefited from a measured @large introduction.

The technical aspects of filtering, selection, identification show seed of 
many discontents and controversial positions, unfair advantages, local law 
disrepects etc..

To my real regret, as we expected much from this study and from the 
participant to its team, as a candidate to the BoD,  I want to state that 
if I was elected I would oppose this proposition.

I call to a stable, simple and consistent scheme acknowledging the nature 
of the Internet as the consensus of its authoritative participants to 
utilize the TCP/IP protocol set under the IP addressing plan interfaced by 
the DNS. This scheme will have to:

- - provide a neutral, professional and open support to the Internet virtual 
infrastructure through the Registy service of the Protocol numbers, of the 
IP address blocks and of the TLDs according to RFC 1591 and 920.

- - obtain sure guidance through the open and cross-fertilizing oriented 
provision of common secretarat services and financing (as a virtual/real 
Internet campus) to the constituencies sharing into the  governance of the 
Internet at tructural level,

This will make:
- - ICANN the keeper and the secretariat of the constituency consensus,
- - constituencies the Members of the ICANN
- - SOs the constituencies working groups with their Council and GA
The constituencies will be able to share in as many SOs they deem necessary.

Providing control and catalysis the BoD has to be balanced between netwide 
oriented experts - technical, political, legal - and seasoned user interest 
competences. To easily reach this candidacy will be in one of these two 
categories when elected by the assembly of the constituencies.

The GAC needs to be complemented by a Consummation Consultative Council to 
provide guidance to the SOs about the legal local impact of their 
propositions and about the Consumer reactions.

Constituencies have to be joined by Registrants - Individual and Bulk, 
Internet Users, Extended DNS designers for the market analysis and 
specification of the DNS evolution, and SMEs new Constiencies.

The @large constituency should be formed by voluntary participants to 
mutual interest services to the public, providing both identification and 
budget. Such services would be such as the participation to the UDRP 
juries, to responses to market studies, to polls on governance options, to 
the test of new services, to NIC governance, etc. keeping its members 
informed, active and rewarded all the year long.

If such an ICANN system is consensually accepted at necessary to the 
support of the Internet Participants, its cost has to be equally supported 
by all the participants through the price of the DNs, without any charge on 
Internet Users.

Every decision or proposition in the ICANN global structure will be 
proposed, debated, documented,   decided and referenced in using a same 
transparent on-line mail based system to be defined and will include a part 
telling how it fights the lingual, the digital and the financial divides.

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: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:05:24 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Position Statement

Désolé en franglais: c'est ce qui est passé au DNSO/GA

I have read the ALSC document.

Without any real advantage to the cause they were to investigate the ALSC 
does not respect the consensus embodied by the White Paper and the MoU, 
limiting the Internet Participants representation to less than one third of 
the BoD.

It uses, as a technical gadget and a filter of doubtful result, the very 
core of the Internet which are the Registrants, their much demanded and 
awaited representation and their payments.

It adds the Indian region as I much asked for in here, but without China 
and Eastern Europe all the existing rules of seat distribution on a 
geographical basis are unballanced without real advantage..

It imposes on Internet stakeholders of every nature and revenues the 
additional charge of a Domain Name and of an additional Member fee, as to 
replace the disputed "pay to help" by "one dollar one vote".

It leads to real dangers for the stability of the entire ICANN as being 
detrimental to the ccTLDs which should have been - as LICs legitimate 
animators - the privildeged partners of the @large structure and to the BC 
and NCDNHC users constituencies of which the role becomes uncertain while 
they should have benefited from a measured @large introduction.

The technical aspects of filtering, selection, identification show seed of 
many discontents and controversial positions, unfair advantages, local law 
disrepects etc..

To my real regret, as we expected much from this study and from the 
participant to its team, as a candidate to the BoD,  I want to state that 
if I was elected I would oppose this proposition.

I call to a stable, simple and consistent scheme acknowledging the nature 
of the Internet as the consensus of its authoritative participants to 
utilize the TCP/IP protocol set under the IP addressing plan interfaced by 
the DNS. This scheme will have to:

- - provide a neutral, professional and open support to the Internet virtual 
infrastructure through the Registy service of the Protocol numbers, of the 
IP address blocks and of the TLDs according to RFC 1591 and 920.

- - obtain sure guidance through the open and cross-fertilizing oriented 
provision of common secretarat services and financing (as a virtual/real 
Internet campus) to the constituencies sharing into the  governance of the 
Internet at tructural level,

This will make:
- - ICANN the keeper and the secretariat of the constituency consensus,
- - constituencies the Members of the ICANN
- - SOs the constituencies working groups with their Council and GA
The constituencies will be able to share in as many SOs they deem necessary.

Providing control and catalysis the BoD has to be balanced between netwide 
oriented experts - technical, political, legal - and seasoned user interest 
competences. To easily reach this candidacy will be in one of these two 
categories when elected by the assembly of the constituencies.

The GAC needs to be complemented by a Consummation Consultative Council to 
provide guidance to the SOs about the legal local impact of their 
propositions and about the Consumer reactions.

Constituencies have to be joined by Registrants - Individual and Bulk, 
Internet Users, Extended DNS designers for the market analysis and 
specification of the DNS evolution, and SMEs new Constiencies.

The @large constituency should be formed by voluntary participants to 
mutual interest services to the public, providing both identification and 
budget. Such services would be such as the participation to the UDRP 
juries, to responses to market studies, to polls on governance options, to 
the test of new services, to NIC governance, etc. keeping its members 
informed, active and rewarded all the year long.

If such an ICANN system is consensually accepted at necessary to the 
support of the Internet Participants, its cost has to be equally supported 
by all the participants through the price of the DNs, without any charge on 
Internet Users.

Every decision or proposition in the ICANN global structure will be 
proposed, debated, documented,   decided and referenced in using a same 
transparent on-line mail based system to be defined and will include a part 
telling how it fights the lingual, the digital and the financial divides.

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 #710
************************