Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #715
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, September 1 2001         Volume 01 : Number 715

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

Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:44:33 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Montevideo GA meeting, 8 Sep 2001, agenda

Roberto,

It is my understanding that many of the constituencies have been interacting
with the candidates separately.  I can certainly confirm that the gTLD
Registry Constituency submitted questions to all of the candidates.

Because the NC is obviously made up of constituencies, I don't think your
concern is as serious as you suggest.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 3:30 AM
To: [email-masked]; [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
- --
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 16:50:46 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Leah,

>
>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

Do you *really* think that the ccTLDs would want to get into the trouble of 
doing this? For instance, the trouble of deciding if there should be a .ps, 
and who manages it. Don't you think that some of the ccTLDs may take a 
position that will reflect the interest of their respective governments, and 
that what should be a technical/professional coordination among ccTLDs may 
turn out in a mini-GAC?

We might ask some of the ccTLD managers what they think. Peter?

Anyway, by proposing to create an SO they have implicitely answered. Were 
they thinking to phase out from ICANN, they would have left instead of 
looking for a solution that will give them more influence on ICANN.

>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
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 13:02:40 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Montevideo GA meeting, 8 Sep 2001, agenda

I can attest that the BC requested submissions from the candidates. And, I'm
sure that most of the NC reps will be in attendance.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 11:45 AM
To: 'Roberto Gaetano'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Montevideo GA meeting, 8 Sep 2001, agenda

Roberto,

It is my understanding that many of the constituencies have been interacting
with the candidates separately.  I can certainly confirm that the gTLD
Registry Constituency submitted questions to all of the candidates.

Because the NC is obviously made up of constituencies, I don't think your
concern is as serious as you suggest.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 3:30 AM
To: [email-masked]; [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
- --
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 20:49:33 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Friday, Friday, August 31, 2001, 7:33:30 AM, pdthrush wrote:
> It largely depends on whether the cc's wish to continue using the legacy root
> service.

That's a joke, right?  :)

The "mainstream" ccTLDs would never do such a thing. ICANN would
simple redelegate those TLDs to new registries, and let you play in
the anarchy/toy namespace with the minuscule number of users who exist
there.

You really think the users would follow you?  You may even find
yourself with a huge legal liability if you do so, because you have an
obligation to your registrants, and they could be irreparably harmed
by such an action.

It's not worth discussing something that will never reasonably happen.

I can only presume you meant to be humorous.

- -- 
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 15:23:06 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nine Geographical Zones

[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.

Do we? Or do we just need to argue that there must be /at least/ as many
openly elected At Large board members as there are representatives of various
special interests?

I think that's a separate question from how we should elect the At Large
directors. Also from how individual domain name holders should be represented
and from whether ccTLDs get their own SO. Whatever is done on any of those
questions, I think at least half the board should be At Large members.

ICANN is supposed to work for the public good. It must include adequate
public representation if it is to credibly claim to be doing that. Half
the board seats is a bare minimum. 

I'd prefer to see them the whole board openly elected, or if interest
groups must be accomodated, then public interest groups like EFF getting
as many seats as business. I can accept the currently agreed (though not
implemented) system with nine At Large directors. Giving the special
interest groups a majority would be utterly absurd. 
 
> 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.

I'm not sure that's fair, or how to make it so. If you do it by population,
then out of nine reps, (roughly) China gets three and India two, and the
rest of the world shares the other four. If you do it by Internet users, I
would guess North America, Europe and Japan between them have a majority.
It doesn't seem to me that either of those divisions is fair, and I cannot
think of another alternative that seems reasonable.
- --
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 21:32:13 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ALSC report presentation in Paris on Sept. 4th

- --=====================_37186269==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I wish to recall those of you who may be in Paris on Sept 4th that the ALSC 
and the ISOC organize a meeting on the ALSC report at 17:00 at the Chamber 
of Commerce. With possibly Mr. Bilt.

Will speak:
- - Loic Damilaville (on this list),
- - Olivier Iteanu - (Président ISOC France and Member ALSC)
- - Pindar Wong (President APRICOT and VP ALSC)
- - Pierre Danjinou Adminstrateur AfriNIC and Member ALSC
- - Elisabeth Porteneuve (on this list) Member of the NC and DNSO Secretary.

Information:
http://www.isocfrance.org/com20010720.html

To register:
http://isoc.noonet.com/icann09/

france@large is no part in this meeting.
But this meeting is obvsiously of real interest.
Jefsey

- --=====================_37186269==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
I wish to recall those of you who may be in Paris on Sept 4th that the
ALSC and the ISOC organize a meeting on the ALSC report at 17:00 at the
Chamber of Commerce. With possibly Mr. Bilt. <br>
<br>
Will speak: <br>
- - Loic Damilaville (on this list), <br>
- - Olivier Iteanu - (Président ISOC France and Member ALSC)<br>
- - Pindar Wong (President APRICOT and VP ALSC)&nbsp; <br>
- - Pierre Danjinou Adminstrateur AfriNIC and Member ALSC <br>
- - Elisabeth Porteneuve (on this list) Member of the NC and DNSO
Secretary.<br>
<br>
Information:<br>
<font color="#0000FF"><u><a href="http://www.isocfrance.org/com20010720.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.isocfrance.org/com20010720.html<br>
</a></u></font>&nbsp;<br>
To register:<br>
<font color="#0000FF"><u><a href="http://isoc.noonet.com/icann09/" eudora="autourl">http://isoc.noonet.com/icann09/<br>
<br>
</a></u></font>france@large is no part in this meeting.<br>
But this meeting is obvsiously of real interest. <br>
Jefsey<br>
<br>
</html>

- --=====================_37186269==_.ALT--

- --
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 15:59:40 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Montevideo GA meeting, 8 Sep 2001, agenda

On 31 Aug 2001, at 11:44, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Roberto,
> 
> It is my understanding that many of the constituencies have been
> interacting with the candidates separately.  I can certainly confirm
> that the gTLD Registry Constituency submitted questions to all of the
> candidates.
> 
> Because the NC is obviously made up of constituencies, I don't think
> your concern is as serious as you suggest.
> 

I disagree, Chuck.  I think it is important to have the NC interact 
with the candidates at the meeting.  Written questions are only a 
small part of the picture and generally geared to specifics 
important to the constituency asking them.  The GA list did not 
see all of the questions and answers.  Having all the candidates 
participate and having the NC involved is, IMO, a very critical 
agenda item.  It is, indeed, disturbing that the NC has not made 
any preparations for that participation.  What is even more 
disturbing is that the GA will have little to do with the "selection" 
other than presenting the list of candidates.  Once again, where is 
the voice of the individual domain name holders?  It's not on the NC.

Leah

> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 3:30 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [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
> --
> 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: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:59:40 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On 31 Aug 2001, at 16:50, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Leah,
> 
> >
> >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
> 
> Do you *really* think that the ccTLDs would want to get into the
> trouble of doing this? For instance, the trouble of deciding if there
> should be a .ps, and who manages it. Don't you think that some of the
> ccTLDs may take a position that will reflect the interest of their
> respective governments, and that what should be a
> technical/professional coordination among ccTLDs may turn out in a
> mini-GAC?
> 

As I said, I don't know what the ccTLDs would want.  My 
comments are simply suppositions and the recognition that their 
policies may be and very likely are different from ICANN's and 
many areas.  Being friendly to ICANN and supportive in some 
areas is a liklihood, I would think.  I also believe that autonomy is 
most important for them.

> We might ask some of the ccTLD managers what they think. Peter?

Precisely.  Isn't that the idea behind their SO activity?

> 
> Anyway, by proposing to create an SO they have implicitely answered.
> Were they thinking to phase out from ICANN, they would have left
> instead of looking for a solution that will give them more influence
> on ICANN.

I believe they have left that as a possibility, but not the preferred 
action.

> 
> 
> >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
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________ 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 19:01:58 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

gTLDs would like autonomy also.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 4:00 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Roberto Gaetano
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On 31 Aug 2001, at 16:50, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Leah,
> 
> >
> >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
> 
> Do you *really* think that the ccTLDs would want to get into the
> trouble of doing this? For instance, the trouble of deciding if there
> should be a .ps, and who manages it. Don't you think that some of the
> ccTLDs may take a position that will reflect the interest of their
> respective governments, and that what should be a
> technical/professional coordination among ccTLDs may turn out in a
> mini-GAC?
> 

As I said, I don't know what the ccTLDs would want.  My 
comments are simply suppositions and the recognition that their 
policies may be and very likely are different from ICANN's and 
many areas.  Being friendly to ICANN and supportive in some 
areas is a liklihood, I would think.  I also believe that autonomy is 
most important for them.

> We might ask some of the ccTLD managers what they think. Peter?

Precisely.  Isn't that the idea behind their SO activity?

> 
> Anyway, by proposing to create an SO they have implicitely answered.
> Were they thinking to phase out from ICANN, they would have left
> instead of looking for a solution that will give them more influence
> on ICANN.

I believe they have left that as a possibility, but not the preferred 
action.

> 
> 
> >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
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________ 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
- --
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 19:37:40 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] New Domebase Proposal to address .INFO Sunrise Problems

Dear Danny,

Would you mind posting or circulating this to folks in the General Assembly?

Thanks, Bob Connor

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

NEW "DOMEBASE PROPOSAL" TO ADDRESS .INFO SUNRISE PROBLEMS

1. Hold "Land Rush I" as originally scheduled.

2. Registrars do not submit names in "Land Rush I" that are registered in
the Sunrise Period.

3. After Land Rush I, registrars give their customers the option to: 
(a) cancel name not submitted in Land Rush I and receive any applicable
refund... none, partial or complete, depending on registrar-specific
agreement; or (b) have name submitted in Land Rush II held after the end of
the Sunrise Challenge period without additional cost.

4. All names registered in the Sunrise Period are entered into Land Rush II.

5. In addition to people with names postponed from Land Rush I, new people
can pre-register names in Land Rush II.  Registrars who accepted "only one
submission per name" for Land Rush I must keep that policy for Land Rush II
to avoid "bait and switch" for Land Rush I pre-registrants.

6. The "winner" of a name for Land Rush II: (a) gets that name for a
registration fee if the name has been successfully Sunrise challenged* by
Afilias and not taken by someone with legitimate trademark rights; (b) gets
that name for a registration fee if it has been voluntarily canceled by the
Sunrise registrant; or (c) can Sunrise challenge* the name and get it if
successful for a subsidized fee (somewhere between $0 and $295) without
having to show a trademark right in the name which would be impossible by
definition. In this manner, legitimate trademark holders would not lose any
names in Land Rush II, but sunrise squatters on non-trademarked names would
face challenge by either Afilias or the Land Rush II winner.

*to protect legitimate trademark holders from name loss due to WHOIS data
processing corruption (good data entered, bad data displayed), give
original registrant a specified time-window after challenge to demonstrate
that the registrant holds legitimate trademark for the name in accordance
with Sunrise rules despite corrupted WHOIS data.

+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Robert A. Connor, Ph.D., M.H.A., Assoc. Professor     |
| Department of Healthcare Management                   | 
| 3-140 Carlson School of Management, Univ of Minnesota |
| 321 19th Avenue South                                 |
| Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455-9940                     |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| E-mail: [email-masked]                    |    
| Voice: (612) 626-7348 / Fax: (612) 624-8804           |  
| Physical Office: 3-127 CSOM Building, West Bank       |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
- --
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 19:11:17 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Membership

The original Bylaws of the Corporation (Nov. 6, 1998) anticipated that ICANN 
would have a membership... hence, ARTICLE II: MEMBERSHIP:  (This Article is 
reserved for use when the Corporation has members.) 

Somewhere along the line this was changed to what we now have today:  "The 
Corporation shall not have members as defined in the California Nonprofit 
Public Benefit Corporation Law ("CNPBCL"), notwithstanding the use of the 
term "Member" in these bylaws, in a selection plan adopted by Board 
resolution, or in any other action of the Board."

The At-Large (as described by the ALSC) will not be members of ICANN.  They 
will be individuals and/or institutions within a Supporting Organization that 
is technically an internal working committee within a corporation with no 
members.

Is this what the Internet community either wants or expects?  I don't think 
so.  True membership fosters true accountability.  Perhaps the ALSC can 
clarify why , in their view, ICANN should continue to be a corporation 
without members, instead of a corporation with At-Large members. 

- --
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 20:13:42 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Board Candidates' Session

Dear Board Candidates,

At this time it would be appropriate to advise the Secretariat or the Chair 
as to whether you will be in attendance at Montevideo.   We may need to make 
arrangements for a telephone link whereby you can communicate to the Assembly 
and to the Council representatives.  Each of you is allotted time for a 
five-minute presentation of your views.  After the presentations have 
concluded, we will commence a question/answer period.

The General Assembly's agenda/schedule:  
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010908.GAmontevideo-agenda.html

Please advise at your earliest opportunity,

Best wishes to all of you,
Danny

- --
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 16:35:29 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Friday, Friday, August 31, 2001, 5:34:02 AM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> On 03:22 31/08/01, William X Walsh said:
>>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.

> Dear WXW,
> this is pleonasm and wrong definition ( please reread RFC 1591 ).
> The ICANN is only to enters the IP of the TLD Managers into the
> master root. When it is confused it asks the conflicting parties
> to settle and in the meanwhile should try to go by the Registrants
> best interest.

Not true.  IANA/ICANN says it will generally defer to that, and
encourage them to settle, but ultimately any decision is their's.

No one does it say that their role is "only to enters[sic] the IP of
the TLD Managers into the master root" or anything similar to that.

- -- 
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 19:03:23 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Membership

Danny you never gave a real response to the question of; Who owns ICANN?  I know
you endeavored to determine the issue.  Are you by lack of declaration
proclaiming that you do not know?  Does it contract without ownership?  If I were
to force it into dissolution would there be no assets because no one owns them
and so they are ethereal at best?  And if such be the case who are the real
parties at interest with the Registrar and Registry contracts?

Please address your recent activity shows you are on the pulse.

Eric

[email-masked] wrote:

> The original Bylaws of the Corporation (Nov. 6, 1998) anticipated that ICANN
> would have a membership... hence, ARTICLE II: MEMBERSHIP:  (This Article is
> reserved for use when the Corporation has members.)
>
> Somewhere along the line this was changed to what we now have today:  "The
> Corporation shall not have members as defined in the California Nonprofit
> Public Benefit Corporation Law ("CNPBCL"), notwithstanding the use of the
> term "Member" in these bylaws, in a selection plan adopted by Board
> resolution, or in any other action of the Board."
>
> The At-Large (as described by the ALSC) will not be members of ICANN.  They
> will be individuals and/or institutions within a Supporting Organization that
> is technically an internal working committee within a corporation with no
> members.
>
> Is this what the Internet community either wants or expects?  I don't think
> so.  True membership fosters true accountability.  Perhaps the ALSC can
> clarify why , in their view, ICANN should continue to be a corporation
> without members, instead of a corporation with At-Large members.
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:57:23 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Somebody clear up this mess,

IANA/ICANN has refused to determine ccTLD management disputes, if I am
not mistaken. Christmas Islands and Philippines come to mind.  In either
case did registrations cease to occur and If so under what authority?

Either one of you gentleman can make this more clear, please do.  Perhaps
one of our Peters would be better suited.  I would love to hear from an
APNIC rep on this matter.

Sincerely,
Eric

William X Walsh wrote:

> Friday, Friday, August 31, 2001, 5:34:02 AM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > On 03:22 31/08/01, William X Walsh said:
> >>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.
>
> > Dear WXW,
> > this is pleonasm and wrong definition ( please reread RFC 1591 ).
> > The ICANN is only to enters the IP of the TLD Managers into the
> > master root. When it is confused it asks the conflicting parties
> > to settle and in the meanwhile should try to go by the Registrants
> > best interest.
>
> Not true.  IANA/ICANN says it will generally defer to that, and
> encourage them to settle, but ultimately any decision is their's.
>
> No one does it say that their role is "only to enters[sic] the IP of
> the TLD Managers into the master root" or anything similar to that.

- --
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 22:30:23 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Membership

Dear Eric,

Sorry that I haven't fully answered your question, "who owns ICANN?"  By the 
way, it's not me.  

As I am engaged in other matters at the moment, perhaps you may wish to first 
review the 1999 United States Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax 
Form 990,  Form 990 Schedule A,  Form 4562, and the California Exempt 
Organization Annual Information Return  found at:  
http://www.icann.org/financials/

This should answer some of your questions, and doubtless it will prompt a few 
more :)

- --
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 #715
************************