Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #712
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, August 30 2001          Volume 01 : Number 712

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

Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:10:44 -0800
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] 3 Ownership Questions

Eric-

While I do not endorse your entire posting, I do note with interest your
comment that the member would be a person who had a domain name obtained
via an icann-approved registrar.

Yes, this does pose a potential dilemma for domain holders in the ccTLD
namespace.

Peter de Blanc
Chair, ccTLD AdCom

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Eric
Dierker
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 7:24 AM
To: [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

- --
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 21:17:00 -0700
From: "M. Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: ALSC draft -- Outreach

Danny -- many thankls for your suggestion. We were in the process of 
restructuring the "New and Noteworthy" section to consolidate 
references to the Montevideo meetings. As you can see this now 
includes a reference to the ALSC report.

Stuart

At 12:55 PM -0400 8/29/01, [email-masked] wrote:
>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.

- -- 

__________________
Stuart Lynn
President and CEO
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 310-823-9358
Fax: 310-823-8649
Email: [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: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: technizmo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Strick Corporation v. James B. Strickland, Jr.

I think I've found my new law firm!  Kudos to Carl
Oppedahl for educating and convincing an obviously
technophobic judge (and buddy of the plaintiff's
counsel) as to the merits of domain name common sense.

Congratulations also to Judge Kauffman for doing
adequate research, and providing an opinion that
should be stapled to the heads of all UDRP
arbitrators.

Sincerely,
Jason Graff

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 06:37:15 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Position Statement

Jefsey,

>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.

"the consensus embodied by the White Paper"?!? Did we vote on it? When did 
that happen? I must have missed it!
Why is everybody so critical (and maybe rightfully so) about the consensus 
building process of ICANN, but ready to accept as "consensus" a document by 
the US Government? Let's face it, the White Paper has the obvious advantage 
of being less absurd than the Green Paper who preceded it, and kudos to whom 
kindly accepted some of the overwhelming criticism of the Internet Community 
to the previous paper, but from this to proclaim consensus, there's a long 
way.
It is accepted not by consensus, but because it is the will of the master of 
the game, kind of "these are the rules: take it or leave it".

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: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:43:59 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] 3 Ownership Questions

Thank you Mr. de Blanc,

Please take special notice of the APNIC agreement with ICANN.  There seems
special allowance for provisions which would allow such application,
especially in conjunction with the redefinition of Internet user.

Basically speaking ICANN decides what is a politically correct stance and if
the APNIC contracts with any party not in conformity to such a stance then
certainly it is grounds for breach.  Probably not a legal case but a
political case to force ccTLDs into lock step with ICANN Staff and BoD
policies.  Woe be to any developing country's' nic that uses independent
thought and gets their country booted from the International clique.

I especially watch with interest the developing of Vietnams' new policies
and Mexico's' declaration that the internet be used more broadly for
education and access by student users. Columbia and the aspiring dotDM are
at major risk, just as we watch with interest the direction of our
beleaguered friends in the Philippines.  We should watch with special
interests Balkans and subAfrika, capture is real and exploitation is a
simple result of lack of support from international standards.  These damned
International Standards are requiring too much while providing too little to
nations struggling to match certain IP and Union standards, they should act
as a hand which pulls up as much as it pushes down.  The desire to meet
international criteria and obtain international funding for poverty relief
and infrastructure should not be creating a brand new colonialism which I
fear it does.

Perhaps if the Internet were "owned" by my Internation dotcommoners a more
just policy could result, perhaps not.  But I do believe an Internation of
ccTLD users may be the best hope to counter ICANNs imperialistic
colonialism.

Sincerely,
Eric
ps. I now add to my fun spell checks.
At-Large = altar
ICANN= Icon
APNIC= panic
BoD = baud
NIC = nice
ccTLD=Cutlass
this is getting great for a spellcheck parody
Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Eric-

>
> While I do not endorse your entire posting, I do note with interest your
> comment that the member would be a person who had a domain name obtained
> via an icann-approved registrar.
>
> Yes, this does pose a potential dilemma for domain holders in the ccTLD
> namespace.
>
> Peter de Blanc
> Chair, ccTLD AdCom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Eric
> Dierker
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 7:24 AM
> To: [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
>
> --
> 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 23:56:01 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Position Statement

I like this Roberto,

You have something here but it is all wrong.

As any negotiator knows a contract of Memorandum of Understanding is exactly a
consensus of two or more parties.  "Papers" as are used in this type of parlance
are exactly consensus documents. As are an RFC which is commented on and not
forced back into hither lands.  Just as here a paper agreed to by two and
proffered to the group and then begrudgingly accepted becomes our consensus.

But I get where you are going here;  You and staff and some task forces are
going to call into question the green & white papers and the MoU and then you
can redefine internet user all the way to just you and them.

Do not rewrite documented history, a contract and/or MoU is a consensus in its
truest form. (that is unless it is obtained by collusion, adhesion or fraud; hm
any gtld contracts come to mind)

Sincerely,
Eric

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Jefsey,
>
> >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.
>
> "the consensus embodied by the White Paper"?!? Did we vote on it? When did
> that happen? I must have missed it!
> Why is everybody so critical (and maybe rightfully so) about the consensus
> building process of ICANN, but ready to accept as "consensus" a document by
> the US Government? Let's face it, the White Paper has the obvious advantage
> of being less absurd than the Green Paper who preceded it, and kudos to whom
> kindly accepted some of the overwhelming criticism of the Internet Community
> to the previous paper, but from this to proclaim consensus, there's a long
> way.
> It is accepted not by consensus, but because it is the will of the master of
> the game, kind of "these are the rules: take it or leave it".
>
> 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: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:57:57 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ALSC draft -- Outreach

This is silly Mr. Lynn,

A decent tech can do that in a day, you are not sincere as you run your
site and this hurts your credibility.

Eric

"M. Stuart Lynn" wrote:

> Danny -- many thankls for your suggestion. We were in the process of
> restructuring the "New and Noteworthy" section to consolidate
> references to the Montevideo meetings. As you can see this now
> includes a reference to the ALSC report.
>
> Stuart
>
> At 12:55 PM -0400 8/29/01, [email-masked] wrote:
> >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.
>
> --
>
> __________________
> Stuart Lynn
> President and CEO
> ICANN
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> Tel: 310-823-9358
> Fax: 310-823-8649
> Email: [email-masked]
> --
> 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: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 06:57:41 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Best Practices/ who objects? I do !!

Joe Kelsey wrote:

>
>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.

IMHO, there's a difference between saying "the sublists are a place to carry 
on informal discussions" and "the discussion must be carried on on the main 
list".
I would favour a situation in which the discussion is carried on in a 
separate list ("informal" or "formal", I do not care, as long as the matter 
under discussion is debated among interested parties). Once there is some 
orientation, some proposal (not necessarily a consensus, even two or three 
alternatives are good enough), the results can be presented to the main 
list, and a debate *in a limited timeframe* will lead to the GA official 
position, if some kind of consensus can be reached.

What I think this process would avoid is the following:
- - force everybody to participate also to the preliminary phase of each and 
every debate, even if they are not interested
- - multiply the amount of e-mail to be read (and downloaded, if this is the 
way you access your mail)
- - rediscuss ad nauseam issues that have been debated over and over again 
every time a newcomer restarts the subject on the main list

So, what I would like to see from, for instance, the "rules" list, is a 
limited set of alternative proposals that can be presented to the GA for 
general debate, not the full details of each and every possible posting on 
the subject. In my long experience of the GA from day -1, I am witnessing 
the same argumentations coming again every three to four months, and I can 
tell you already from one post what will be the following one, and by whom 
it will be posted.

Same for other subjects.

I understand the desire of some participants to have a wide audience to 
their opinions, but this desire is in conflict with the desire of other 
people not to be held hostage of debates that they don't want to go into 
details about.

My bottom line: specialised lists for coarse grinding, then (when some 
results get into shape) GA list for fine tuning (and decision).

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: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 07:23:20 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

David Farrar wrote:

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

Please let me give give two replies to this and other posts on the subject.

First, as an individual, I do believe that if a proposal for an ALSO is 
going forward (and you bet it will, because from the legal POV it is the 
only way the lawyers see to avoid the "membership under California law" 
potential problem and still be able to give a voice to the users), it will 
be even more difficult to argument for an IDNH Constituency in the DNSO.
Besides, just in case somebody did not realize it yet, the DNSO "as it is 
today" is dead and buried, because it failed, in the ICANN BoD's eyes, its 
mission to provide vice to the Board on matters related to the DNS. Whether 
it can regenerate itself from its ashes, is the real question. I personally 
do believe that it will, but not keeping the present structure.
As a side note, would you think that the ccTLDs, once the CCSO formed, could 
keep their Constituency in the DNSO? The same reasonment applies: as ccTLD 
Constituency they have a direct interest in the DNS and in its policies (the 
gTLDs are competitors to a certain extent - why leave to them only the power 
of influencing the DNSO advice to the Board?), while as CCSO they have a 
broader interest, spanning also on the protocols used in the Net, on the 
interaction with the GAC, on the way IP addresses are distributed across the 
world, on the way the root servers are managed, in other words, interests 
going well beyond the scope of the DNSO.
So, if it is good for the goose, it should be good for the ganser (or 
whatever the spelling is), and we would assist to a multiplication of 
requests to build autonomous SOs.

This said, putting back my "GA-Rep-in-the-Review-TF", I note that the vast 
majority of the comments on this subject are disagreeing with me, and 
proposing that the request for an IDNH/Registrant Constituency be part of 
the (reformed) DNSO.
In this respect, I would like to continue the debate on the requirements for 
the new constituencies (see 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc01/msg00006.html and reply by MM 
in http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc01/msg00008.html).

Personally, I believe that the criteria must be limited to a general 
introduction to the need for a new constituency, a series of "whereas" 
explaining the history, and a list of statements on the line of what the 
accepted constituencies have produced in order to gain acceptance (see 
http://www.icann.org/minutes/exhibita.htm - presented in Berlin 1999).
Of course, it will be in the best interest of the wannabe constituency to 
produce more and better evidence to better build their case, but it should 
not be a requirement for the DNSO to open a debate and a vote in the NC).

Whaddoyou think? Fair enough?

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: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:12:17 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 07:23:20 +0000, "Roberto Gaetano"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>David Farrar wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>First, as an individual, I do believe that if a proposal for an ALSO is 
>going forward (and you bet it will, because from the legal POV it is the 
>only way the lawyers see to avoid the "membership under California law" 
>potential problem and still be able to give a voice to the users), it will 
>be even more difficult to argument for an IDNH Constituency in the DNSO.

Yep I am aware it will not be easy.

>Besides, just in case somebody did not realize it yet, the DNSO "as it is 
>today" is dead and buried, because it failed, in the ICANN BoD's eyes, its 
>mission to provide vice to the Board on matters related to the DNS. Whether 
>it can regenerate itself from its ashes, is the real question. I personally 
>do believe that it will, but not keeping the present structure.

If the DNSO is changed so that it is not the sole source of policy
advice to the Board on domain name issues, then I would agree that the
proposed ALSO could be an adequate replacement for a Registrant's
Constituency.  But if the DNSO remains in its current form then there
is still a need for Registrant's to be represented within the DNSO..

The ALSC seems to have suggested the Business, IP and NC
Constituencies all be dissolved and be made part of an ALSO.  The
remaining constituencies of Registries, Registars and ISPs would no
longer be a DNSO but merely a provider SO.  

If the Business, IP and NC constituencies are also removed from the
DNSO then I would totally agree no need for a Registrant's
constituency.

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: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:39:11 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On 2001-08-29 18:38:46 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:

>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?

Look at the ccTLDs.  Responsibility for domain name policy _will_ be 
split over multiple SOs.

- -- 
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: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 01:56:26 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

- --------------3C315619757D505B67E021F8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sorry this is one of those posts where the tail wags the dog, anything taken out
of context destroys the nature of the contextual truth.

DPF wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 07:23:20 +0000, "Roberto Gaetano"
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >David Farrar wrote:
> >
> >>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.
> >
> >First, as an individual, I do believe that if a proposal for an ALSO is
> >going forward (and you bet it will, because from the legal POV it is the
> >only way the lawyers see to avoid the "membership under California law"
> >potential problem and still be able to give a voice to the users), it will
> >be even more difficult to argument for an IDNH Constituency in the DNSO.
>

Neither of you men were any help or contribution in the quest for ownership of
the ICANN now you flip terms and switch back and forth on individual as though
you own the domain.  Please act responsibly there are others relying upon your
positions.  Let us here your positions on membership and ownership.

>
> Yep I am aware it will not be easy.
>
> >Besides, just in case somebody did not realize it yet, the DNSO "as it is
> >today" is dead and buried, because it failed, in the ICANN BoD's eyes, its
> >mission to provide vice to the Board on matters related to the DNS. Whether
> >it can regenerate itself from its ashes, is the real question. I personally
> >do believe that it will, but not keeping the present structure.
>

You have two problems here bro.  How is it you know what the BoD thinks???  your
slippage of saying vice as opposed to advise does not go unnoticed.  Why do you
bother and how can you represent a dead body on an assignment you ran for, you
are acting hypocritical at best.  Now I definitely distrust your motives on
being on your work as a rep for the GA.

>
> If the DNSO is changed so that it is not the sole source of policy
> advice to the Board on domain name issues, then I would agree that the
> proposed ALSO could be an adequate replacement for a Registrant's
> Constituency.  But if the DNSO remains in its current form then there
> is still a need for Registrant's to be represented within the DNSO..
>
> The ALSC seems to have suggested the Business, IP and NC
> Constituencies all be dissolved and be made part of an ALSO.  The
> remaining constituencies of Registries, Registars and ISPs would no
> longer be a DNSO but merely a provider SO.
>
> If the Business, IP and NC constituencies are also removed from the
> DNSO then I would totally agree no need for a Registrant's
> constituency.
>
> DPF
> --
> [email-masked]
> ICQ 29964527

Nice logic but not one word of political support for users, otherwise known as
dotcommoners within the Internation.  So please provide your views toward that
issue.

- --------------3C315619757D505B67E021F8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Sorry this is one of those posts where the tail wags the dog, anything
taken out of context destroys the nature of the contextual truth.
<p>DPF wrote:
<br>&nbsp;
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 07:23:20 +0000, "Roberto Gaetano"
<br>&lt;[email-masked]> wrote:
<p>>David Farrar wrote:
<br>>
<br>>>Obviously we should look at the proposed role and function of an
at
<br>>>large SO to prevent overlap but in no way should we say there is
now
<br>>>no need for individual registrants to be represented within the DNSO
<br>>>because of this.
<br>>
<br>>First, as an individual, I do believe that if a proposal for an ALSO
is
<br>>going forward (and you bet it will, because from the legal POV it
is the
<br>>only way the lawyers see to avoid the "membership under California
law"
<br>>potential problem and still be able to give a voice to the users),
it will
<br>>be even more difficult to argument for an IDNH Constituency in the
DNSO.
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
<i>Neither of you men were any help or contribution in the quest for ownership
of the ICANN now you flip terms and switch back and forth on individual
as though you own the domain.&nbsp; Please act responsibly there are others
relying upon your positions.&nbsp; Let us here your positions on membership
and ownership.</i>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>Yep I am aware it will not be easy.
<p>>Besides, just in case somebody did not realize it yet, the DNSO "as
it is
<br>>today" is dead and buried, because it failed, in the ICANN BoD's eyes,
its
<br>>mission to provide vice to the Board on matters related to the DNS.
Whether
<br>>it can regenerate itself from its ashes, is the real question. I personally
<br>>do believe that it will, but not keeping the present structure.
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
<i>You have two problems here bro.&nbsp; How is it you know what the BoD
thinks???&nbsp; your slippage of saying vice as opposed to advise does
not go unnoticed.&nbsp; Why do you bother and how can you represent a dead
body on an assignment you ran for, you are acting hypocritical at best.&nbsp;
Now I definitely distrust your motives on being on your work as a rep for
the GA.</i>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>If the DNSO is changed so that it is not the sole source of policy
<br>advice to the Board on domain name issues, then I would agree that
the
<br>proposed ALSO could be an adequate replacement for a Registrant's
<br>Constituency.&nbsp; But if the DNSO remains in its current form then
there
<br>is still a need for Registrant's to be represented within the DNSO..
<p>The ALSC seems to have suggested the Business, IP and NC
<br>Constituencies all be dissolved and be made part of an ALSO.&nbsp;
The
<br>remaining constituencies of Registries, Registars and ISPs would no
<br>longer be a DNSO but merely a provider SO.
<p>If the Business, IP and NC constituencies are also removed from the
<br>DNSO then I would totally agree no need for a Registrant's
<br>constituency.
<p>DPF
<br>--
<br>[email-masked]
<br>ICQ 29964527</blockquote>
<i>Nice logic but not one word of political support for users, otherwise
known as dotcommoners within the Internation.&nbsp; So please provide your
views toward that issue.</i></html>

- --------------3C315619757D505B67E021F8--

- --
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 02:33:15 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: ALSC draft -- Outreach

Jeff,

I agree with you here to a point.  And then I just get down right pissed
off.  This is like going to a doctor who should be able to cure your
infection with an antibiotic, can't - and then blames it on you for the
people you hang out with.  I understand the Touton has a little server
warehouse up in the Marina area and about 74 billion ips reserved.  Why did I
just run a ping trace from SE Asia and have it routed through MDR.
Competence is not the issue. They can do it, they just yell and scream that
they cannot.  The actual ownership of the ICANN is not the issue.  There is
no membership.

Accountability is the issue, these bastards never stand up for what they do.
They never say this is what I am doing and why.  They are spineless at best
and larcenist at norm.

To say that non-domain name holders ( individuals ) should be excluded due to
technical problems is absurd, to say there will be a crash due to alternate
dotBizs is ludicrous.  These people blame technical incompetence for there
own social incompetence.  My techno friends can do anything these people need
to run this ICANN right yet they are blamed for not having the answers.  In
this case hail to the technos and wo be it upon us poly-wogs.

Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Eric and all assembly members,
>
>   Technical competence doesn't seem to be one of the ICANN BoD
> and staff's long suit.  This has been made evident in the number of
> occasions where the ICANN Web site has been down and the obvious
> poor design of it.  However this brings into question AGAIN the
> competence of the ability to carry out it's technical advisory
> requirements...
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > This is silly Mr. Lynn,
> >
> > A decent tech can do that in a day, you are not sincere as you run your
> > site and this hurts your credibility.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > "M. Stuart Lynn" wrote:
> >
> > > Danny -- many thankls for your suggestion. We were in the process of
> > > restructuring the "New and Noteworthy" section to consolidate
> > > references to the Montevideo meetings. As you can see this now
> > > includes a reference to the ALSC report.
> > >
> > > Stuart
> > >
> > > At 12:55 PM -0400 8/29/01, [email-masked] wrote:
> > > >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.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > __________________
> > > Stuart Lynn
> > > President and CEO
> > > ICANN
> > > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> > > Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> > > Tel: 310-823-9358
> > > Fax: 310-823-8649
> > > Email: [email-masked]
> > > --
> > > 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
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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 12:49:32 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On 09:23 30/08/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
>Of course, it will be in the best interest of the wannabe constituency to 
>produce more and better evidence to better build their case, but it should 
>not be a requirement for the DNSO to open a debate and a vote in the NC).

Full agreement here. Creating a new constituency is BoD privilege. NC has 
nothing to do here. But the new constituency mist be formed enough for the 
BoD just to acknowledge it exists and to maintain good relations already 
with the other constituencies. Actually is should be a no one 
decide/everyone approve situation.

Should the GA have existed and Joop having started the IDNO as a de facto 
part of the GA, the problem would be solved for a long.

Jefsey

PS. The change in DNSO will be the abandon of Dennis Jennings compromise. 
We all know that for a long and it should have been WG-Review 's main task 
to address the way of doing it. This now question the raison d'être of the 
BC and of the NCDNHC. They must switch quickly to the ALSO since the rigid 
SO system oblige them to belong to a single SO. This rigid SO system also 
creates a totally artificial problem to the ccTLDs. Mike is right about the 
need of a gTLDSO. Another solution would be to adopt directly my scheme 
instead of promoting progressively every constituency to SO level, making 
the BoD a super NC until the SO start forming WG with their own Council and GA.

- --
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 #712
************************