Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #714
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, August 31 2001           Volume 01 : Number 714

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

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:17:28 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nine Geographical Zones

Thursday, Thursday, August 30, 2001, 4:27:38 PM, [email-masked] 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. 

Kudo's.

Good idea.

- -- 
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 20:34:40 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Actually, you have a serious point.  I have long wondered why 
ccTLDs should not simply be included in the root and let it go at 
that.  

On 30 Aug 2001, at 20:08, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> 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-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 20:52:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

These benefits (which seem quite real), however, accrue from disscussion
in search of sensible harmonization, and don't actually require a formal
relationship -- do they?.

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

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Peter Dengate-Thrush" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 12:08 PM
> 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?
> >
> 
> Good questions. We rather see it as an exploration of what advantages will
> accrue to the internet community, taken separately within our own countries,
> and globally, from
> coming together.
> Are there policies which we can develop together?
> We have begun to think there are, by reference to our Best Practices
> document for example.
> Others have found it helpful to refer to the UDRP in developing their own
> local DRPs.
> 
> Together, the gTLD administration - ICANN, and the rest of the world's
> registry managers may form quite a useful body.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Senior Vice Chair
> Asia Pacific TLD Association
> APTLD Adcom member
> 
> 

- -- 
		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

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

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:58:57 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Thursday, Thursday, August 30, 2001, 5:44:37 PM, Peter Dengate-Thrush wrote:

>> 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.
>>
> An interesting demonstration of the cultural bias that is part of the point
> we make. I assume you mean the US government's pressure. My government, to
> the contrary, has not put any pressure on my organisation (Internet New
> Zealand) to expand gTLDs, nor on anyone else including ICANN. This is true
> for most if not all of the ccTLDs in the Constituency.

Well, to be direct, at least right now until ICANN gets more sturdy on
its own, the US Government is really the one that has the most
influence, if not dominance, over ICANN.

But remember, the EU governments were also critical of the lack of
progress on this.

>> 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?

> Of course not. The question points out how little you know about what the
> cc's have been doing for 3 years, which means we have, plainly,  not
> communicated effectively to you about this. Fortunately, all of our
> important stakeholders are aware of the effort that has gone into Best
> Practices, Root server contracts, delegation and re-delegation, and
> financing ICANN. Although these my be of no interest to you, you can find
> them on the Constituency websites, and those of most of the Constituency's
> regional organisations.

> You will see that they have little if anything to do with domain names,
> which is why discussing them in the DNSO is inappropriate.

I see this two ways.

One, they related to the ccTLD registry, so that automatically makes
the issues related to domain name policy, and under the DNSO umbrella.

Secondly, you can look at this as outside the DNSO and just part of
the issues that stakeholders in the gTLD community also have to look
at.  The same setup I mentioned in my email applies.  These issues
alone do not justify a separate SO.

>>
>> The ccTLD community needs to take more responsibility for getting its
>> issues the attention and direction they require.
>>
> Agreed. Which is why we are forming an international association of CC
> managers. We expect some of our time after that to be spent operating as a
> Support Organisation inside ICANN. The rest of the time we will be getting
> on with other major issues affecting us globally.]

I suggest instead you address your issues via a liaison setup, and
remain active as a constituency in the SO that you belong in, the
Doman Name SO.

- -- 
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 18:22:01 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Thursday, Thursday, August 30, 2001, 5:08:29 PM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

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

Well, the only "contract" that exists with more ccTLDs is RFC1591, and
I guess that contract would be with IANA, which is ICANN.  So I see
the reason, easy enough.  Ultimately it is ICANN who will decide who
is the proper delegated authority for the ccTLD, and their entry in
the root, just like the gTLDs, so that pretty much wraps that up.

I don't buy the anarchy tld/alt.tld arguments on this subject, a
central authority is essential.  The problem is that we need to reform
the one we have.

> 2. why ccTLDs should have ANY say over ICANN?

Same reason any stakeholder should, especially one that has so much at
stake as they do.

- -- 
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 18:53:34 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nine Geographical Zones

Dear Overworked Elisabeth,

It is good to see you set aside time to express your views on this list.  Your
point below is well stated and I ask that we simply step back into the non digital
world and see the obvious solution.

When we established business relations as a marketer in such countries as Canada,
Mexico and Vietnam we first initiated the common courtesy of employing a local and
then the legality of a representative office with a local in charge.  Even a
cursory look at matters such as the Hague and UN and the Olympics require that they
have a home and to do business with them you employ local talent to get your work
accomplished.  Countries and regions dealing with ICON should be smart to this and
enlist the assistance of US advocates to help their cause.  It is all part of
marketing and lobbying.  Many would be free of charge, via other business
relationships.  There certainly is no charge from our company to the foreign
country when they ask assistance regarding a Global Internet Strategy Policy
evaluation and or representation.

So should an advocate or representative necessarily need to physically come from a
region? Of course not.

Let me put it this way.; If France were not so well represented regarding their
national views here, they could simply hire someone like Sotiris to speak on their
behalf and he would do a wonderful job of representing their interests, if he did
it really well you would not even know he was doing it.  Regions and Nations must
be represented but making it a discriminatory practice as to who can fill what seat
is kind of bogus.

Just my opinion, which is right. ;>}

Eric

Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

> 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
> --

- --
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 07:57:09 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] NAIS final report

http://www.naisproject.org/report/final/
- --
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 07:13:11 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Leah,

>
>Actually, you have a serious point.  I have long wondered why
>ccTLDs should not simply be included in the root and let it go at
>that.

With which mechanism?
I mean, who decides if a "thing" is a ccTLD or not, and if the operator is 
authoritative?
Somebody must have the responsibility for inclusion of a new TLD, things do 
not just happen by themselves.

>
>On 30 Aug 2001, at 20:08, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>
> > Actually, I kind of wonder
> > 1. why icann should have ANY say over ccTLDs?

Because ccTLDs have no other possibility to be included in the root.
The situation is not static, countries appear and disappear, and new records 
shall be created/removed.
You may consider it unfortunate, but ICANN has this authority, even if it 
acts only under adult supervision by USG (by USG has made it clear since the 
Ira Magaziner times that it wants to operate behind the curtain, delegating 
the front role to an entity acting under agreement with USG). In other 
words, if it is not ICANN, it must be somebody else, since the real owner 
(USG) considers politically unwise to act directly.

> > 2. why ccTLDs should have ANY say over ICANN?
> >

If they don't want to, they should be free not to.
But if I were a ccTLD Registry, I would consider myself a stakeholder, and 
would like to have a say in what is going on. Just like Registrants are 
trying to do.

Regards
Roberto

P.S.: Just curious, why these questions? What is the alternative scenario 
that you envisage for entry/exit from the root?
- - ccTLDs "self-manage";
- - USG acting directly;
- - a third entity different from ICANN does it (VeriSign?)

_________________________________________________________________
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: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:30:08 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Montevideo GA meeting, 8 Sep 2001, agenda

Very good work from Danny to put such complete and detailed agenda together.
May I just say that there are two things I find disturbing, though (not the 
fault of the Chair, obviously).

The first one is only moderately disturbing, more a worry than anything 
else:
>
>      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

Some Task Forces have representatives elected by the GA. I would have 
preferred to see the GA reps reporting (maybe via telephone link if they are 
unable to attend in person) rather than have somebody else doing it.
I find it risky to have elected officials that do not communicate with the 
electing body.

The second one is seriously disturbing:
>
>   6. Session with the DNSO Board Candidates:
>
>      11:00 - 11:20 Candidates' Statements
>      11:20 - 12:00 Open Microphone: Questions for the Candidates

The problem is not to allocate GA time to discuss with the candidates, but 
rather the fact that no time is allocated in the NC agenda.
Considering that who votes in the end are the NC reps, I find severely 
disturbing that they are not interested in the debate with the candidates.
Is the debate going on somewhere else?
Or have the NC reps already made up their mind?
Maybe I'm just paranoiac, and all NC reps will be attending the GA, and 
follow attentively the debate with the candidates.

Incidentally, I proposed some time ago a telephone link with the candidates 
that will not be able to make it to Montevideo, if any.
Is this a feasible option?
Not like participation "in person", but still better than nothing, methinks.

Regards
Roberto
(always thinking that in absence of the "perfect solution" a reasonable 
subset is better than nothing)

_________________________________________________________________
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: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:57:02 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Dear Peter and Michael,
Two issues there:

1) from the ALSC report - the ccTLD are not trusted TLDs. Our problem is to 
avoid an RSC (root service centers) disagreements. USG root by ICANN, 
China, could be Europe, Value Added Roots, etc... This calls for having 
their different Root Server Galaxies coordinated (10 of the 13 ICANN root 
servers on the US soil is already a major reliability problem). I have no 
problem in having the ICANN assuming the secretariat the "Internet Campus".

2) as far as the ICANN structure is concerned: rather than every 
constituency becoming an SO, the simplest would be to accept that 
Constituencies are the basic ICANN component, that several are missing, and 
that they share their common concerns and advices to the BoD through the 
various SOs they may be concerned with. The SOs being permanent 
constituency specialized WGs with their own dedicated Council and GA.

It is necessary that NICs - i.e. ccTLD Managers as the trustee of their LIC 
[attending to their LIC real needs is their source of revenues if they want 
to  survive] - should belong to a NICSO. This will help them developing, 
innovating in different areas, creating ad-hoc joint services, regional 
alliances... The Internet Users Constituency, the BC Constituency, the 
SMEConstituency, ISPs should belong to such an SO too. Special ties with 
the GAC and a Consumer organizations Consultative Council to be 
formed  would help them.

It is obvious that ccTLDs - as Registries (please reread RFC 1591) - should 
stay in DNSO dedicated to DNServices issues with gTLDs, sTLDs, Registrars, 
Registrants, Internet Users, ISPs and IPC.

It seems strange they do not share in the ASO for IP addresses and in PSO 
for innovation, language, documentation  etc ... issues.

Please let forget a minute Joe Sims and his outdated organizational and 
no-members concepts, the local Californian law and the US Tax system. As 
one of the new members asked me "when do they talk about the Internet?".

Let get real. Let open the windows and look outside!
This is the Internet, not the USPS ...

Jefsey

At 02:08 31/08/01, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>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:
> > From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
> > > 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.

- --
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 06:47:21 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On 31 Aug 2001, at 7:13, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Leah,
> 
> >
> >Actually, you have a serious point.  I have long wondered why
> >ccTLDs should not simply be included in the root and let it go at
> >that.
> 
> 
> With which mechanism?
> I mean, who decides if a "thing" is a ccTLD or not, and if the
> operator is authoritative? Somebody must have the responsibility for
> inclusion of a new TLD, things do not just happen by themselves.

It seems that the ccTLDs are forming their own organizations that 
would actually be in a much better position to determine what is a 
valid ccTLD.  Things do not happen by themselves, but it just 
seems logical that cc's should take care of themselves in this 
manner.  Entry of a new ccTLD should be up to those 
organizations as opposed to ICANN, IMO.  ICANN should simply 
perform the clerical entry of the information provided by the ccTLD 
organizations.  IOW, cooperate with them.  Let ICANN handle the 
TLDs they now control and let the ccTLDs remain autonomous.  I 
see no need for ICANN to micromanage them or force them to 
comply with policies that could very well go against their cultures 
and laws.

Leah

> 
> >
> >On 30 Aug 2001, at 20:08, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> >wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, I kind of wonder
> > > 1. why icann should have ANY say over ccTLDs?
> 
> Because ccTLDs have no other possibility to be included in the root.
> The situation is not static, countries appear and disappear, and new
> records shall be created/removed. You may consider it unfortunate, but
> ICANN has this authority, even if it acts only under adult supervision
> by USG (by USG has made it clear since the Ira Magaziner times that it
> wants to operate behind the curtain, delegating the front role to an
> entity acting under agreement with USG). In other words, if it is not
> ICANN, it must be somebody else, since the real owner (USG) considers
> politically unwise to act directly.
> 
> 
> > > 2. why ccTLDs should have ANY say over ICANN?
> > >
> 
> If they don't want to, they should be free not to.
> But if I were a ccTLD Registry, I would consider myself a stakeholder,
> and would like to have a say in what is going on. Just like
> Registrants are trying to do.
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> 
> P.S.: Just curious, why these questions? What is the alternative
> scenario that you envisage for entry/exit from the root? - ccTLDs
> "self-manage"; - USG acting directly; - a third entity different from
> ICANN does it (VeriSign?)
> 
see above.
- --
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 01:05:28 -0400
From: Rob Courtney <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NAIS Report Released

Members of the General Assembly:

The NGO and Academic ICANN Study (NAIS) has released its report on 
reforming ICANN to make it more responsive to the public interest, 
entitled, "ICANN, Legitimacy, and the Public Voice: How to Make 
Global Participation and Representation Work." The report is 
available in PDF at: http://www.naisproject.org/report/final/.

An Executive Summary of the report is also available, in both PDF and 
HTML forms. Translations of the Executive Summary (Spanish, French, 
and Chinese) are currently in production.

In brief, the NAIS report calls on ICANN to commit itself to 
including the public voice in three major areas:

* ICANN should maintain a broad, open At-Large Membership, accessible 
to any Internet user with an interest in ICANN's activities.

* The At-Large Membership must be provided with strong participatory 
mechanisms, to enable Members to have a persistent and continuing 
role in the dialogue and debate that are part of the ICANN policy 
process.

* The Membership must also be strongly represented at the Board level 
through the direct election of a number of At-Large Directors equal 
to the aggregate number of Directors selected by the Supporting 
Organizations.

The report discusses these principles in detail, and sets out a 
framework by which ICANN can fulfill them completely.

We look forward to the community's responses to this report. Please 
feel free to contact me or any member of the NAIS team with any 
questions or comments.

Rob Courtney

- -- 
- --

Rob Courtney
Secretariat
NGO and Academic ICANN Study
http://www.naisproject.org/
[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: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:45:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Since those aspects of ccTLD managment are handled by 'IANA', and 'IANA'
seems to be exempt from all ICANN transparency rules, why not just hive it
off?

(Readers wanting to know about the IANA/ICANN separation fiction are
invited to read a series of articles on ccTLD issues that have appeared on
www.icannwatch.org in the last few months...)

On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Leah,
> 
> >
> >Actually, you have a serious point.  I have long wondered why
> >ccTLDs should not simply be included in the root and let it go at
> >that.
> 
> 
> With which mechanism?
> I mean, who decides if a "thing" is a ccTLD or not, and if the operator is 
> authoritative?
> Somebody must have the responsibility for inclusion of a new TLD, things do 
> not just happen by themselves.
> 
> >
> >On 30 Aug 2001, at 20:08, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, I kind of wonder
> > > 1. why icann should have ANY say over ccTLDs?
> 
> Because ccTLDs have no other possibility to be included in the root.
> The situation is not static, countries appear and disappear, and new records 
> shall be created/removed.
> You may consider it unfortunate, but ICANN has this authority, even if it 
> acts only under adult supervision by USG (by USG has made it clear since the 
> Ira Magaziner times that it wants to operate behind the curtain, delegating 
> the front role to an entity acting under agreement with USG). In other 
> words, if it is not ICANN, it must be somebody else, since the real owner 
> (USG) considers politically unwise to act directly.
> 
> 
> > > 2. why ccTLDs should have ANY say over ICANN?
> > >
> 
> If they don't want to, they should be free not to.
> But if I were a ccTLD Registry, I would consider myself a stakeholder, and 
> would like to have a say in what is going on. Just like Registrants are 
> trying to do.
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> 
> P.S.: Just curious, why these questions? What is the alternative scenario 
> that you envisage for entry/exit from the root?
> - ccTLDs "self-manage";
> - USG acting directly;
> - a third entity different from ICANN does it (VeriSign?)
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> 
> 

- -- 
		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

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

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:03:52 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nine Geographical Zones

Excellent ideas here, which may be carried a step further. One of our
august group has commenced an essentially personal poll to find out
how many participants in the GA have domain names -- a good thing
to know, if it is possible to find out.  From the GA members list, one
could easily extract this other factual foundation stone, namely, what
is the geographical distribution of GA participants. (The list of registered
voters already has that data, so that would be a start.)

The further body of facts that would be useful to have for outreach
purposes -- and I have no idea how to collect such facts -- would be
the geographical distribution of people who use the internet, i.e., at
least have email addresses.  At present, those who have domain names
(we are, after all, in the DNSO) and those who participate in the GA
would provide a beginning perspective out of which a geographical
distribution for present purposes could be formulated.  For future
purposes, however, it would be useful to know who all it is that may
(or could be) "listening" to what happens on the internet. It is that much
broader body of people who will need to be served in the future, and
to do so, it would be helpful if we knew more about who they are
(generically, of course, not by name) and where they are located.

Bill Lovell

Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

> 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

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html

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

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

Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:29:23 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nine Geographical Zones

Dear Danny,
As you know I support three projects here:

1. nine geographical balanced areas:
     The mapping project I support is the following:

      - North-America
      - South-America
      - Western-Europe
      - Eastern-Europe
      - Western-Asia
      - Eastern-Asia
      - Pacific
      - Africa
      - Oceans

      Up to each country to decide which local area they wants to be in.

      I underline the need of an Ocean area for all the territories with 
specific concerns in term of network infrastructure, e-commerce off-shore 
propositions, and the shipping.

2. I propose that every ccTLD maintains 243 addresses made of the other 
ccTLDs. This addresses should be free as per old restrictions. This would 
allow bi-lateral international concerns to be addressed. Let say that as a 
French I want to know everything on franco-canadian relations, business, 
tourisme, administrative rules, tourisme, etc... I would go straight to 
http://ca.fr  Hotels information would be at http://hotel.ca.fr . think 
this might help a lot to strength the relations between ccTLDs and lead 
them into more stable a rewarding activities. This is part of the 
DNServices concept I support. A regional cooperation would be helped a lot 
through these more local 9 areas.

3. I lobby for avery proposition and decision to include a part decribing 
how it may help reducing the lingual, the digital and the financial divides.

I suppose that no one has to be detailed how these three propositions might 
help in the long task of reducing the lingual, the digital and the 
financial divides.

Jefsey

On 01:27 31/08/01, [email-masked] said:
>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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #714
************************