Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #713
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, August 31 2001           Volume 01 : Number 713

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

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:38:55 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Personal poll: Domain name holder yes/no?

Dear all,

I'm curious to know about the percentage of DN holders
within the DNSO GA -- let's do some fact-finding.
If you're curious too, please send this one-question
inofficial poll back to me /personally/, and I will send
the results I have received after about a week.
Please don't forward this poll to others -- this is
not a vote, it's just to get a rough estimate of
the percentage of domain name holders amongst GA members.
(Needless to say: If you don't want to respond, don't.)

Best regards,
/// Alexander

*** Please tick ALL applicable answers with an [X]
*** and make sure you don't send your answer to the list!

_____________________________________________________________________

   I am the holder of one or more registered domain names...

   [ ] ...in a generic Top Level Domain (such as .com, .net, .org)

   [ ] ...in a country code Top Level Domain (such as .ca, .it, .tv)

   [ ] ...in a non-ICANN Top Level Domain (e.g. New.net, ORSC, etc.)

   [ ] I don't hold any registered domain names.

_____________________________________________________________________

Definition: For this poll, it's not important whether the domain
is used for your personal website or your multi-million dollar
enterprise, as long as you are the one person 'behind' that domain.

Privacy: All the individual data (name, e-mail address, DN holder
or not) will be kept secret. I will publish aggregate statistics
on the number of DN holders in each category if I receive enough
answers.
- --
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 12:12:06 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Personal poll: Domain name holder yes/no?

I'm curious, Alexander, as to what this statistic will tell you.  Since 
GA members are a tiny percentage of domain name holders (even 
every GA member held one), it doesn't tell you how many would 
join if there were an IDNHC.  This would be especially true if there 
were a good outreach program once the constituency was 
estbished.

It would be interesting, however, to know the percentage or number 
of GA members who are dn holders (individuals, of course.)

Leah

On 30 Aug 2001, at 14:38, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I'm curious to know about the percentage of DN holders
> within the DNSO GA -- let's do some fact-finding.
> If you're curious too, please send this one-question
> inofficial poll back to me /personally/, and I will send
> the results I have received after about a week.
> Please don't forward this poll to others -- this is
> not a vote, it's just to get a rough estimate of
> the percentage of domain name holders amongst GA members.
> (Needless to say: If you don't want to respond, don't.)
> 
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
> 
> 
> *** Please tick ALL applicable answers with an [X]
> *** and make sure you don't send your answer to the list!
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________
> 
>    I am the holder of one or more registered domain names...
> 
>    [ ] ...in a generic Top Level Domain (such as .com, .net, .org)
> 
>    [ ] ...in a country code Top Level Domain (such as .ca, .it, .tv)
> 
>    [ ] ...in a non-ICANN Top Level Domain (e.g. New.net, ORSC, etc.)
> 
>    [ ] I don't hold any registered domain names.
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________
> 
> Definition: For this poll, it's not important whether the domain
> is used for your personal website or your multi-million dollar
> enterprise, as long as you are the one person 'behind' that domain.
> 
> Privacy: All the individual data (name, e-mail address, DN holder or
> not) will be kept secret. I will publish aggregate statistics on the
> number of DN holders in each category if I receive enough answers. --
> 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 16:22:30 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Position Statement

Eric Dierker wrote:

>
>I like this Roberto,
>
>You have something here but it is all wrong.

Oh, good. For a moment I was afraid that you agreed.

;>)

>
>As any negotiator knows a contract of Memorandum of Understanding is 
>exactly a
>consensus of two or more parties.

I was not talking about the MoU, but about the White Paper 
(http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm), issued largely 
*before* the birth of ICANN.
Youy may notice that the document does not title "agreement", but "Statement 
of Policy".

<wrong consequence of wrong premise snipped>

>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.

I am not calling into question anything, I agree on the fact that the White 
Paper is *the* authoritative source that we have to refer to.
But I also have to point out that it is not a "consensus" document, is a 
unilateral document produced by the owner of the boat, with some degree of 
consultation, but scarce acknoledgement of the large criticism on the 
previous document (the Green Paper).
But we have to live with that.

>
>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)

It is you (and others) who try to rewrite history trying to invent a 
"consensus" on the White Paper that was never expressed.
(Hint: go read the archives of the discussions back then)

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 12:28:05 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN - pay attention

<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>Finally, a court decision that treats trademarks as they should be 
treated.  They do not own the DNS and have limited rights to a 
mark in the DNS.  It shows just how far afield the UDRP had 
traveled and how egregious some of their decisions have been 
using equally egregious prior decisions as precedents.

Leah

</color><FontFamily><param>Courier New</param>"<FontFamily><param>Arial</param>JUDGE SAYS STRICK.COM CAN STICK WITH OWNER A 
federal court judge in Pennsylavania has ruled that James 
Strickland, the owner of strick.com, is entitled to keep his domain.  
The decision contains considerable discussion about the 
intersection of trademarks and domain names including noting 
"that Internet surfers are inured to the false starts and excursions 
awaiting them and are unlikely to be dissuaded, or unnerved, when, 
after taking a stab at what they think is the most likely domain 
name for particular web site guess wrong and bring up another's 
webpage" and that "It is clear that nothing in trademark law 
requires that title to domain names that incorporate trademarks or 
portions of trademarks be provided to trademark holders. To hold 
otherwise would create an immediate and indefinite monopoly to all 
famous mark holders on the Internet, by which they could lay claim 
to all .com domain names which are arguably 'the same' as their 
mark. The Court may not create such property rights-in-gross as a 
matter of dilution law. ... Trademark law does not support such a 
monopoly." Decision at  

<underline><color><param>0000,8000,0000</param><FontFamily><param>Courier New</param>http://www.strick.com/aug27.pdf</underline> "<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param><FontFamily><param>Arial</param>

- --
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 09:38:29 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Personal poll: Domain name holder yes/no?

While I find your sentiment in the right place I conclude a different
reality.

Some of us were involved just a few short years ago in the massive suing
of  perceived cybersquatters.  I know of a least fifteen cases filed in
federal court where everyone under the sun was brought in as a defendant.
(admin contact, providers, registrars, registries, technical contacts
etc.,)  The company I work with still has clients from that period in the
latter part of the last century. To this day we hold their names in a sort
of trust.  With the advent of the screwy methods of dealing with expiry
over at Verisign we would be negligent to throw our clients to fend for
themselves in that environment.  We have recently lost two names through
transferring and it is what we do for a living.  If my son were to obtain a
domain name I would insist he leave it to a professional to manage. And
even then the disclaimer would be a mile long.

So now I think that if we find any member here other than my technically
incompetent self, without a domain name I will be surprised.  But that is
because the others are policy wise incompetent and do not realize their
domain name should be held in a manner more secure than personal ownership.

Sincerely, but somewhat tongue in cheek,
Eric

L Gallegos wrote:

> I'm curious, Alexander, as to what this statistic will tell you.  Since
> GA members are a tiny percentage of domain name holders (even
> every GA member held one), it doesn't tell you how many would
> join if there were an IDNHC.  This would be especially true if there
> were a good outreach program once the constituency was
> estbished.
>
> It would be interesting, however, to know the percentage or number
> of GA members who are dn holders (individuals, of course.)
>
> Leah
>
> On 30 Aug 2001, at 14:38, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I'm curious to know about the percentage of DN holders
> > within the DNSO GA -- let's do some fact-finding.
> > If you're curious too, please send this one-question
> > inofficial poll back to me /personally/, and I will send
> > the results I have received after about a week.
> > Please don't forward this poll to others -- this is
> > not a vote, it's just to get a rough estimate of
> > the percentage of domain name holders amongst GA members.
> > (Needless to say: If you don't want to respond, don't.)
> >
> > Best regards,
> > /// Alexander
> >
> >
> > *** Please tick ALL applicable answers with an [X]
> > *** and make sure you don't send your answer to the list!
> >
> > _____________________________________________________________________
> >
> >    I am the holder of one or more registered domain names...
> >
> >    [ ] ...in a generic Top Level Domain (such as .com, .net, .org)
> >
> >    [ ] ...in a country code Top Level Domain (such as .ca, .it, .tv)
> >
> >    [ ] ...in a non-ICANN Top Level Domain (e.g. New.net, ORSC, etc.)
> >
> >    [ ] I don't hold any registered domain names.
> >
> > _____________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Definition: For this poll, it's not important whether the domain
> > is used for your personal website or your multi-million dollar
> > enterprise, as long as you are the one person 'behind' that domain.
> >
> > Privacy: All the individual data (name, e-mail address, DN holder or
> > not) will be kept secret. I will publish aggregate statistics on the
> > number of DN holders in each category if I receive enough answers. --
> > 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-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 12:09:41 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Tucows letter to NSI regarding Domain Transfers

http://www.opensrs.org/archives/discuss-list/0108/0948.html

- -- 
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: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:23:32 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Tucows letter to NSI regarding Domain Transfers

Thanks to WXW for his recent post.
For those interested in making further comments regarding the transfers issue:

http://forum.icann.org/regxfer/ 

- --
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 21:57:13 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Personal poll: Domain name holder yes/no?

Hello Leah,

> I'm curious, Alexander, as to what this statistic will tell you.  Since
> GA members are a tiny percentage of domain name holders (even
> every GA member held one), it doesn't tell you how many would
> join if there were an IDNHC.  This would be especially true if there
> were a good outreach program once the constituency was
> estbished.

Several people have asked: No, I'm perfectly aware that
the GA is only a tiny bit of the puzzle. However...

> It would be interesting, however, to know the percentage or number
> of GA members who are dn holders (individuals, of course.)

...that's exactly what I find interesting, too. And the
question how many people participate even in the DNSO GA
without having a domain name -- maybe that's food for
thought regarding the ALSO plans. Additionally, it may
be interesting to see how many only have a ccTLD domain
as opposed to a gTLD. I'm simply curious and hope that
many participate.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

> On 30 Aug 2001, at 14:38, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I'm curious to know about the percentage of DN holders
>> within the DNSO GA -- let's do some fact-finding.
>> If you're curious too, please send this one-question
>> inofficial poll back to me /personally/, and I will send
>> the results I have received after about a week.
>> Please don't forward this poll to others -- this is
>> not a vote, it's just to get a rough estimate of
>> the percentage of domain name holders amongst GA members.
>> (Needless to say: If you don't want to respond, don't.)
>>
>> Best regards,
>> /// Alexander
>>
>>
>> *** Please tick ALL applicable answers with an [X]
>> *** and make sure you don't send your answer to the list!
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>>
>>    I am the holder of one or more registered domain names...
>>
>>    [ ] ...in a generic Top Level Domain (such as .com, .net, .org)
>>
>>    [ ] ...in a country code Top Level Domain (such as .ca, .it, .tv)
>>
>>    [ ] ...in a non-ICANN Top Level Domain (e.g. New.net, ORSC, etc.)
>>
>>    [ ] I don't hold any registered domain names.
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Definition: For this poll, it's not important whether the domain
>> is used for your personal website or your multi-million dollar
>> enterprise, as long as you are the one person 'behind' that domain.
>>
>> Privacy: All the individual data (name, e-mail address, DN holder or
>> not) will be kept secret. I will publish aggregate statistics on the
>> number of DN holders in each category if I receive enough answers. --
>> 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

- --
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 16:58:25 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On 30 Aug 2001, at 10:39, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> 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.

ccTLDs should have complete control over their policies, domain or 
otherwise.  The DNSO should continue to have the same concerns 
it has had.  I see no shared responsibility over "multiple" SOs.  If 
that were the case, why would the ccTLDs need a separate SO?  
As I have said before, the DNSO needs to be restructured to allow 
a more balanced participation.  It does not change the focus or 
mission - domain names.

The at-large OTOH encompasses the whole enchilada.  The ccTLD 
SO may also encompass more than just domain names, as well 
as being autonomous and having the right to participate or not in 
the ICANN process.  The fact that most of them choose to 
participate is good for ICANN, whether they adopt all or some of 
ICANN's policies.  They, also need a stronger voice.

I hope the board gets the message.  

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: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:46:54 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Thursday, Thursday, August 30, 2001, 1:58:25 PM, L Gallegos wrote:

> On 30 Aug 2001, at 10:39, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>> 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.

> ccTLDs should have complete control over their policies, domain or 
> otherwise.  The DNSO should continue to have the same concerns 

I oppose the creation of a separate ccTLD SO.

The ccTLD community is exclusively about their ccTLDs, and that is a
domain name issue, and belongs in the DNSO.

That the ccTLD feels they are not getting heard inside of ICANN is
another issue that should be dealt with independently.  ICANN can
create a ccTLD community liaison office, whose sole responsibility
will be working with the ccTLDs to make sure their concerns and issues
are getting the attention they require from the ICANN staff and board.
The registries and registrars tend to have someone who is assigned to
be a liaison between their organizations and ICANN.  The ccTLD
community needs to do the same.

Perhaps the best solution is for the ccTLDs to create a non-profit
organization to advocate on their behalf.  A mutual-benefit
corporation that will lobby ICANN for their interests.  They can hire
a couple full time staff member, and open an office close to the ICANN
offices so that they have access.

But I see no justification for splitting them off into their own SO,
and I hope the board deals with the "demand" appropriately.

- -- 
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: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:18:59 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Montevideo NC meeting, 8 Sep 2001, agenda

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

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010908.NCmontevideo-agenda.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

   DNSO Names Council Meeting in Montevideo on 8 September 2001 - agenda

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

30 August 2001.

This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the DNSO
Names Council http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010711.NCprocedures-v3.0.html

Date, time, phones and webcast

  1. The DNSO Names Council meeting in Montevideo will be held on Saturday 8
     September 2001, 14:00 - 17:00, [@ Ballroom] .

     (10:00 LA, 13:00 New York, 17:00 UTC, 19:00 Paris, 02:00 Japan/Korea next day)
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     Local time between April and end October, SUMMER in the NORTH hemisphere
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         17:00
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     California, USA                            UTC-8+1DST  10:00
     Missouri, USA                              UTC-6+1DST  12:00
     Monterrey, Mexico                          UTC-6+1DST  12:00 since 6 May
     Panama, Panama                             UTC-5+0DST  12:00
     Washington DC, USA                   (EST) UTC-5+1DST  13:00
     St.Thomas, Virgin Islands                  UTC-4+0DST  13:00
     Santiago, Chile                            UTC-4+0DST  13:00 since 11 Mar
     Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST  14:00
     London, United Kingdom                     UTC+0+1DST  18:00
     Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+1DST  19:00
     Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+1DST  19:00
     Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+1DST  19:00
     Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+1DST  19:00
     Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST   2:00 next day
     Tokyo, Japan                               UTC+9+0DST   2:00 next day
     Melbourne, Australia                      UTC+10+0DST   3:00 next day
     Auckland, New Zealand                     UTC+12+0DST   5:00 next day
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     The DST ends/starts on last Sunday of October (with some exceptions)
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

     Please visit http://www.icann.org/montevideo/ for details about all
     ICANN meetings (schedule, agendas, meeting rooms, hotels, visas, etc).

  2. The NC will be webcast by Berkman Center, thanks to Ben Edelman
     [email-masked]

     Access will be via http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/ as
     usual. You will find on Berkman site all information about technical
     requirements.

     In summary a 28.8 Kbps connection is required for access to live and
     archived streaming media feeds (56K or faster preferred). The necessary
     software is the RealPlayer version 5.0 or later (version G2 or later
     preferred) or the Microsoft Windows Media Player (version 6.4 or
     later).

Agenda for Names Council meeting 14.00 - 17.00 September 8 Montevideo
Running time: 180 mins Allocated time: 160 mins

Philip Sheppard will be chairing the NC meeting.

  1. ICANN Board elections:

        o update on GA session with candidates (Philip) 5 mins
        o reminder of voting procedure (Elisabeth) 5 mins

  2. Re-structuring and review process:

        o At Large report (feedback from previous day) (Marilyn) 20 mins
          http://www.atlargestudy.org/draft_final.shtml
        o Individuals Constituency /link to At Large (Philip) 20 mins
        o cc SO and implications for DNSO (Peter) 20 mins

  3. Equitable Allocation of SRS Resources (Ken) 30 mins

  4. WhoIs survey (Paul) 10 mins

  5. Future of Dot org (Milton) 30 mins

  6. Reports from other task forces

        o DNSO Review (Philip) 10 mins
        o UDRP Review (Guillermo) 10 mins

  7. Any other business

Next NC teleconference will be held on 11 October 2001, at 15:00 Central
European Time (Paris time), see dates for the NC meetings in 2001 in:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-calendar.html

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

                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

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

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

Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:21:28 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Montevideo GA meeting, 8 Sep 2001, agenda

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

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010908.GAmontevideo-agenda.html ]

ICANN/DNSO

   DNSO General Assembly Montevideo Meeting on 8 September 2001 - agenda

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

30 August 2001

From Danny Younger, GA Chair

Date, time and webcast

  1. The DNSO General Assembly meeting in Montevideo, Uruguay, will be held
     on Saturday, 8 September 2001, 08:30 - 13:00, [@ Ballroom].

     [ Montevideo is UTC-3: 4:30 LA, 7:30 New York, 11:30 UTC, 13:30 Paris,
     20:30 Japan/Korea]
     [ For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ ]

     Please visit http://www.icann.org/montevideo/ for details about all
     ICANN meetings (schedule, agendas, meeting rooms, hotels, visas, etc).

  2. The GA will be webcast by Berkman Center, thanks to Ben Edelman
     [email-masked]

     Access will be via http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/ as
     usual. You will find on Berkman site all information about technical
     requirements.

     In summary a 28.8 Kbps connection is required for access to live and
     archived streaming media feeds (56K or faster preferred). The necessary
     software is the RealPlayer version 5.0 or later (version G2 or later
     preferred) or the Microsoft Windows Media Player (version 6.4 or
     later).

Agenda for the General Assembly

  1. Administration:

     08:00 - 08:05 Report from the Chair - Danny Younger
     08:05 - 08:10 Report from the Secretariat - Elisabeth Porteneuve

  2. Issues:

     08:10 - 08:15 VeriSign: Equitable Allocation of SRS Resources
     08:15 - 08:20 VeriSign: Internationalized Domains Update
     08:20 - 08:35 Registrars: Transfers and Expiring Domains
     08:35 - 08:45 ccTLDs: Formation of ccSO
     08:45 - 08:50 Neulevel: Status of .biz roll-out
     08:50 - 09:00 Afilias: Report on .info Sunrise Registrations
     09:00 - 09:15 ALSC Report
     09:15 - 09:25 NAIS Report
     09:25 - 09:30 Interim Coordinating Committee Comments

  3. Public Forum:

     09:30 - 10:00 Open Microphone

  4. Intermission:

     10:00 - 10:10 intermission

  5. Reports:

     10:10 - 10:15 Simultaneous Translation Task Force - Pilar Luque
     10:15 - 10:20 New TLD Evaluation Task Force - Y.J.Park
     10:20 - 10:25 UDRP Task Force - Milton Mueller
     10:25 - 10:30 WHOIS Committee
     10:30 - 10:35 Review Task Force - Roberto Gaetano
     10:35 - 10:40 .Org Task Force - Milton Mueller
     10:40 - 10:50 Cyberspace Association - Joop Teernstra
     10:50 - 11:00 Global Internet Policy Initiative - Alan Davidson

  6. Session with the DNSO Board Candidates:

     11:00 - 11:20 Candidates' Statements
     11:20 - 12:00 Open Microphone: Questions for the Candidates

  7. 13:00 End of General Assembly plenary session

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

                    Information from:  © DNSO GA Chair's

- --
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 19:27:38 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Nine Geographical Zones

If we seek to thwart the effort to have the At-Large Board Directors reduced 
from nine to six, we need to organize a counter proposal.  

I wish to re-propose the creation of nine geographical zones, thereby  
honoring the White Paper committment to geographical diversity while creating 
a means by which we can readily elect our At-large Directors.  

Those that wish to participate in this "mapping" project are requested to 
post their preliminary recommendations to our GA-ICANN list.  As we move 
closer to a consensus, we can bring the dialogue back onto the main GA list. 

- --
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 16:46:40 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Thursday, Thursday, August 30, 2001, 4:33:14 PM, Peter Dengate-Thrush wrote:

> Its because the DNSO has in fact only ever dealt with gTLD domain name
> issues that the cc's have voted to withdraw. The DNSO was never intended or
> able to affect ccTLD domain name issues.

I don't completely blame ICANN or the DNSO for this, I blame the
ccTLDs for it.

Certainly the ccTLDs can see that the one major issue ICANN was under
both governmental as well as public pressure over was the expansion of
gTLDs, so a certain amount of focus on that should be understood.

However, what as the ccTLD community done to bring its issue before
the DNSO for discussion and consideration and proposal of policies?
Have they sat around waiting for ICANN and the DNSO community to bring
the issues up for them and then have them dealt with?

The ccTLDs don't warrant a separate supporting organization just
because they feel their issues are getting heard.  If every group that
doesn't feel they are getting heard to their satisfaction demanded to
be their own SO, it would simple be madness.

The ccTLD community needs to take more responsibility for getting its
issues the attention and direction they require.

- -- 
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: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 01:49:53 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nine Geographical Zones

Actually, it would be essential to have stats on participation
(people who write to the ga list) from current geographic regions
or better by countries.
I see there is no such information provided in ALSC report.

I am very much in favour of geographic diversity, provided
there is participation behind. If not, we may consider the ICANN
structure is not well adapted, and then we need to ask ourselves why.
May be there are alternate structures for wide geographic participation ?

Elisabeth Porteneuve
- --

Danny wrote:
> 
> If we seek to thwart the effort to have the At-Large Board Directors reduced 
> from nine to six, we need to organize a counter proposal.  
> 
> I wish to re-propose the creation of nine geographical zones, thereby  
> honoring the White Paper committment to geographical diversity while creating 
> a means by which we can readily elect our At-large Directors.  
> 
> Those that wish to participate in this "mapping" project are requested to 
> post their preliminary recommendations to our GA-ICANN list.  As we move 
> closer to a consensus, we can bring the dialogue back onto the main GA list. 
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:08:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Actually, I kind of wonder
1. why icann should have ANY say over ccTLDs?
2. why ccTLDs should have ANY say over ICANN?

On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Peter Dengate-Thrush wrote:

> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 8:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > On 30 Aug 2001, at 10:39, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > ccTLDs should have complete control over their policies, domain or
> > otherwise.  The DNSO should continue to have the same concerns
> > it has had.
> 
> Agreed.
> Its because the cc's actually have complete control over their policies that
> makes them so different from the gTLDs, which are "owned and controlled" by
> ICANN.
> 
> The cc's are responsible to their Local Internet Community, which is a self
> defining community,  and which more and more involves the government of the
> territory whose name corresponds to the 2 letter ISO code for that
> territory.
> 
> Its because the DNSO has in fact only ever dealt with gTLD domain name
> issues that the cc's have voted to withdraw. The DNSO was never intended or
> able to affect ccTLD domain name issues.
> 
> > The at-large OTOH encompasses the whole enchilada.  The ccTLD
> > SO may also encompass more than just domain names, as well
> > as being autonomous and having the right to participate or not in
> > the ICANN process.  The fact that most of them choose to
> > participate is good for ICANN, whether they adopt all or some of
> > ICANN's policies.  They, also need a stronger voice.
> >
> > I hope the board gets the message.
> 
> Me, too. I am confident that it has.
> 
> Regards
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Senior Vice Chair
> Asia Pacific TLD Association
> ccTLD Adcom Member
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                 -->It's very hot and humid here.<--

- --
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 #713
************************