Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #711
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, August 30 2001          Volume 01 : Number 711

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

Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 02:21:32 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Hello Roberto!

Roberto Gaetano wrote on 28.08.01, 17:09:37:
> What do GA members think? Does the idea of an ALSO obsolesce
> the request for an IDNH Constituency?

The idea should not obsolesce the request, but if the ALSO
should become reality (and I think that there are some good
reasons for that), the need for additional representation
of DN holders in another SO will at least be very different.
(The other way around: As long as there is no ALSO, the need
for individual domain name holders representation in the DNSO 
is great.)

Why do I think that an ALSO may make sense? What the user 
participation up till now lacked was mechanisms for aggregation.
Not only does the GA still not have a way to devise a motion
(which is the GA's fault, not ICANN's), the At Large membership 
list was instantly frozen, never updated or re-opened, so it 
never had much of a chance to organize. Neither all Internet 
users nor all domain name holders have exactly the same interests 
- -- the GA exemplifies this truism. But this also applies 
e.g. to the registrars and doesn't prevent them from being 
heard. If an ALSO and regional sub-organizations are able 
to get the missing bottom-up participation and interest aggregation 
going, this would be tremendous progress.

Leah has argued that "by making the at-large an SO, [ICANN]
removes the 'membership' provision and the power of the 
at-large to influence policy decisions." 
I'm actually not so sure about the current and future power of 
the At Large to influence policy decisions. Frankly, the GA's 
power has been very low, and even the one of a single individual 
DN holders constituency /within/ the DNSO would have been rather 
weak. The At Large's power has been non-existent after the election
(and nobody has challenged the alleged violation of Californian
legal rights in the courts, so this seems rather a demand than 
a legal claim). It is a strengthening compared to the status quo, 
but may not be strong enough from my and/or your point of view. 
But don't underestimate the power of having your own organisation, 
even if it functions in an advisory (and electing!) capacity.

ALSO: only individual domain name holders? I think there are 
two roads to answering this, and both are not perfectly satisfactory. 
One is: How much impact have ICANN policy decisions on IP 
addressing and protocols had yet? Not too much, for various reasons; 
the pressure is on ICANN mainly because of the DNS. If this 
changes (probably rather in the IP address area than in the 
protocol area), we have to think again, but at the moment, the 
main IP address policy arenas seem to be elsewhere. 
  
The other one in the opposite direction: How difficult is it (and
will it be in the future) to get a domain name? There are at 
least some ccTLDs where you can get free domain names (with your 
name as admin). If e.g. IP address policy affects you, I would 
think that it's unlikely you're not affected by DNS policy and 
have no domain name. Even if you don't have it, you might get 
such a free one just to participate. We may have to 'think 
different' when it comes to Internet users affected by ICANN 
policy and living in poorer countries, but it wouldn't be impossible 
even if we use DN holders as the basic structure. Wolfgang
Kleinwächter mentioned on the icann-europe the possibility of
"a 'sponsorship system' for individuals in undereveloped regions 
(if individual users / domain name holders fulfill certain 
criteria their membership fee can be waved)?" Have a look at
ISOC's (sponsored) complimentary memberships to see that this
is happening. (http://www.isoc.org/isoc/membership/emember/)

Finally, the 6 vs. 9 question: This is a serious one, and there
are good reasons to keep the 50:50 balance, unless there are
additional mechanisms ensuring that the At Large cannot
simply be outvoted.

But let's discuss the issues separately and let's not bash the 
whole report just because of this. You may like the ALSO, but 
dislike its composition of DN holders. Or perhaps you like the ALSO 
and its composition, but dislike the number of Board seats. Or maybe
you dislike or like everything. But let's have a differentiated
debate on this! (Obviously, I have strayed from addressing
Roberto here... ;)

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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 18:54:17 -0600
From: "Earl Heather" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: GA-InternationalDN-dotorg-TF-election

BEGIN:b08:Kdeb5Z:Earl_Heather:[email-masked]:SVP-reply
 b08:Kdeb5Z:[x] Marc Schneiders, for dot org TF
 b08:Kdeb5Z:[x] Danny Younger, for International DN TF
 END__:b08:Kdeb5Z:Earl_Heather:[email-masked]:SVP-reply

- --
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 18:23:20 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force/dotcommoners

Dear Mr. Svensson,
I enjoyed reading your sound analysis and agree to take the issues
separately.

A priest lives in his parish next door to the chapel and preschool.  even
though the parish would give him a car he chooses for all the right
reasons to donate it elsewhere.  Meanwhile the traffic light goes out
which is the crosswalk to his preschool, now he finds out that
pedestrians cannot petition for repairs of street lights--you must own a
car first!

A doctor who has more patients than he needs has no need for a domain
name.  He helps rural farmers on both sides of the border with the U.S.
and Mexico, transportation is hard but at least one home in each town has
an email (or maybe it is the only store in the ejido). So in the evening
he is busy answering emails to cure illness and prevent illness.  Even if
he had a site it would waste his time and energy to use it.  He is
excluded from input into "governance".

It has never and should never be the right of businesses to demand the
say in policy, it is and always should be those effected at the lowest
level. (don't jump to fast) I did not say businesses did not dictate
policy, I simply point out that since businesses and large interests like
IPs do dictate business the rights must be vested in the user of those
rights.  This is why earlier today I quoted the boilerplate from the MoU
prohibiting by law discrimination.

I submit that if this exclusion goes further then there will ultimately
be a larger divide and this will in fact divide the internet.  I believe
countries that act responsibly to their citizens will object strenuously
and if they are not heeded then we shall look back and say "An
Internation shall be judged upon how it treats its most minimal user".

{are those registered with the existing dotBIZ considered to be domain
name holders?}

Sincerely,
Eric

Alexander Svensson wrote:

>
> ALSO: only individual domain name holders? I think there are
> two roads to answering this, and both are not perfectly satisfactory.
> One is: How much impact have ICANN policy decisions on IP
> addressing and protocols had yet? Not too much, for various reasons;
> the pressure is on ICANN mainly because of the DNS. If this
> changes (probably rather in the IP address area than in the
> protocol area), we have to think again, but at the moment, the
> main IP address policy arenas seem to be elsewhere.
>

> But let's discuss the issues separately and let's not bash the
> whole report just because of this. You may like the ALSO, but
> dislike its composition of DN holders. Or perhaps you like the ALSO
> and its composition, but dislike the number of Board seats. Or maybe
> you dislike or like everything. But let's have a differentiated
> debate on this! (Obviously, I have strayed from addressing
> Roberto here... ;)
>
> 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: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:11:09 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On 2001-08-28 15:08:33 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:

>Absolutely NOT, Roberto.  The IDNHC is a critical component of the 
>DNSO,

Just like registries and registrars, and just like the ccTLDs.

It seems that the proposals on breaking up the DNSO in particular 
say "good-bye" to the old issue-based approach to Supporting 
Organizations.

Thus, if the DNSO stays like it is, an IDNHC should be established. 
However, if it's broken up, and the issue-based SO model is 
abolished, an IDNHC's role would in fact be taken by the ALSO.

- -- 
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: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 01:10:32 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

|> From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 12:11 AM
|> 
|> On 2001-08-28 15:08:33 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
|> 
|> >Absolutely NOT, Roberto.  The IDNHC is a critical component of the 
|> >DNSO,
|> 
|> Just like registries and registrars, and just like the ccTLDs.
|> 
|> It seems that the proposals on breaking up the DNSO in particular 
|> say "good-bye" to the old issue-based approach to Supporting 
|> Organizations.
|> 
|> Thus, if the DNSO stays like it is, an IDNHC should be established. 
|> However, if it's broken up, and the issue-based SO model is 
|> abolished, an IDNHC's role would in fact be taken by the ALSO.

If this indeed were to occur, then we would have a radically different
critter on our hands. It would be one where it would be substantially more
difficult to determine where the power centers were.
- --
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 04:09:10 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On 29 Aug 2001, at 9:11, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2001-08-28 15:08:33 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> >Absolutely NOT, Roberto.  The IDNHC is a critical component of the
> >DNSO,
> 
> Just like registries and registrars, and just like the ccTLDs.
> 
> It seems that the proposals on breaking up the DNSO in particular say
> "good-bye" to the old issue-based approach to Supporting
> Organizations.
> 
> Thus, if the DNSO stays like it is, an IDNHC should be established.
> However, if it's broken up, and the issue-based SO model is abolished,
> an IDNHC's role would in fact be taken by the ALSO.

I don't think so.  If there is a DNSO, there must be a recognized 
place for individual domain name holders based on domain name 
issues.

On the other hand, the At-large (note I am not using the SO) is 
supposed to be a "Membership" component of ICANN and 
encompass much more than domain name issues.  The at-large is 
concerned with all the SOs, as members, and should not be 
relegated to just another advisory SO.  It represents the greater 
internet community, holding half the seats on the board.  It's 
function is, IMO, very different from the DNSO.  It is not a 
constituency.  There will be domain name holders who are 
members of the at-large, as I'm sure there will be people who are 
involved in IP addressing, technical aspects, protocols and any 
other area of the internet.  They will be individuals from every 
aspect of the internet community, including end users who are 
impacted by ICANN.

As I said before, the IDNHC is very different from the at-large and 
has a definite place wthin DNSO regardless of what form it takes 
due to restructuring.

If ICANN is to fulfill its mandate as a bottom-up organization, the at-
large membership is a critical component, as is a voice for IDNH's 
in particular to balance the DNSO.

Leah

> 
> -- 
> 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-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: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:23:49 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] 3 Ownership Questions

It has come to pass that we now have several ownership questions which
may come down to only three on final analysis.

ICANN ownership. (can it really be that no one owns a corporation, which
contracts with the US Gov.)
Domain Name ownership. (if there are no ownership rights then what are
they)
Internet Ownership. ( The US government certainly contracts as though it
is a US public resource)
At-Large Ownership. (otherwise known as membership)
ccTLD Ownership. (constantly changing)

Most folks have some understanding of Deeds and Leases.  Few understand
Fee Simple Absolutes and Land Lease issues with federal governments.  It
is important that these type of property interests developed over time.
Now we have a new type of property and we need in the first order of
business to set up stable rules for definition and use.  I am not
concerned with the definitions as a philosophical matter as in what is
Justice.

We simply need to come up with a framework to handle these issues so
that those in authority cannot change the rules as they go along.

I note specifically the At-Large Draft changing, by faulty analysis, the
meaning of Internet User to a Domain Name Holder from an accredited
ICANN registrar.  I can only assume that soon ccTLDs and Domain Names
outside of ICANNs contractual sphere will be told to buy an ICANN Domain
Name or retire their membership in any ICANN organization.

Transferability; If you cannot be sure what right you transfer or
receive that creates an instability and needs to be remedied.

I cite in general reference Karls' writings on ICANN's ownership, Ms.
Ronys' site on historical and current documentation and the ongoing list
of what is a domain name.  Of course a few years of study of feudalism,
liaise faire, communism, US zoning laws and colonialism is a good basis
for evaluating property rights.

The GA should address these issues on an ongoing basis and create its'
own review to complete the work.

Sincerely,
Eric

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

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

Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:55:05 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ALSC draft -- Outreach

I note that the ALSC draft report is still not published as "New and Noteworthy" on ICANN's main website.  As the potential re-structuring of the ICANN organization is certainly worthy of considerable discussion, would it not be appropriate to prominently cite the document and to create a public forum link so that public comments might be received?

Outreach is a pro-active effort.  If we truly wish to obtain consensus, we should endeavor in good faith to make it possible for the public to become aware of the issues and to respond accordingly.
- --
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 21:08:03 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Notification of 4 candidates to the ICANN Board

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]

Since 17 July 2001 the DNSO General Assembly is in the process of 
selection of ICANN Board Director.

During three weeks, 7-28 August 2001, the members of General Assembly 
of the DNSO were requested to express their endorsement to five
candidates for ICANN Board position.

The names of four candidates who receive a support from at least 10 
members of the General Assembly of the DNSO, are transmitted to the 
Names Council for vote.

        * Amadeu Abril i Abril (Europe)
        * Paul Kane (Europe)
        * Joanna Lane (Europe)
        * Jean-François C. (Jefsey) Morfin (Europe)

The DNSO Names Council will select the ICANN Board Director
between 8 and 15 September.

The following URLs are related to the ICANN Board Director election
by the DNSO in 2001:
   A. Main document: Description of the election process in 2001
      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-election.html
   B. Procedure for nominations, acceptances and endorsements by the GA,
      and calendar for 2001:
      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-nomination-proc.html
   C. A list of nominations, acceptances and their endorsements:
      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-nominees.html
   D. The NC voting procedure:
      http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-voting-proc.html

DNSO Secretariat
- --
- --
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: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 07:38:50 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:11:09 +0200, Thomas Roessler
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Thus, if the DNSO stays like it is, an IDNHC should be established. 
>However, if it's broken up, and the issue-based SO model is 
>abolished, an IDNHC's role would in fact be taken by the ALSO.

Agreed.  If the DNSO loses responsibility for domain name policy then
the proposed ALSO may suffice.

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: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:38:46 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On 30 Aug 2001, at 7:38, DPF wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:11:09 +0200, Thomas Roessler
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> >Thus, if the DNSO stays like it is, an IDNHC should be established.
> >However, if it's broken up, and the issue-based SO model is
> >abolished, an IDNHC's role would in fact be taken by the ALSO.
> 
> Agreed.  If the DNSO loses responsibility for domain name policy then
> the proposed ALSO may suffice.

I thought that DNSO stood for DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING 
ORGANIZATION.  How in the world can that be transformed so that 
it no longer has responsibility for domain name policy?  
Restructuring it so that it is more fairly distributed doesn't mean 
destroying it.  It certainly does not make it less imperative to 
include individual domain name holders.

Leah

> 
> 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-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: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:54:02 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Strick Corporation v. James B. Strickland, Jr.

An interesting court case in which the defendant domain name
owner (represented by Carl Oppedahl) prevailed on cross-
motions for summary judgment.  A UDRP process had also
been carried out, in which Mr. Strickland also prevailed.  A
summary, and links to the opinion and other documents, can
be found at  http://www.strick.com.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #711
************************