Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #716
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, September 1 2001         Volume 01 : Number 716

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

Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:09:47 -0300
From: Hartmut Richard Glaser <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nine Geographical Zones

Dear Jefsey and GA,

And Central-America and Caribean?

rgds

Hartmut Glaser

=================================
At 13:29 31/08/01 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>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 (and CENTRAL AMERICA AND CARIBEAN)
>      - 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
>

- --
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: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 17:31:20 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: IANA Report on .au (Australia) redelegation

IANA Report on Request for Redelegation of the .au Top-Level Domain
http://www.iana.org/reports/au-report-31aug01.htm

Excerpts:
 Upon its establishment in 1986, the .au ccTLD was delegated to Robert
 Elz, a network programmer at the University of Melbourne.
 ...
 [T]he .au Domain Administration (auDA) was formed. On 15 November
 1999, Mr. Elz sub-delegated to auDA the authority to manage the
 .com.au namespace, which comprises approximately 85% of all domain
 names within the .au ccTLD.
 ...
 The IANA's consultations with the Australian Internet community have
 demonstrated substantial support for auDA's assumption of the role
 as manager of the .au ccTLD. In consultations with the IANA, Mr. Elz
 has acknowledged that the management of the .au ccTLD should be
 transferred to a broadly supported organization.
 ...
 Mr. Elz, however, has expressed concern that auDA is still not fully
 formed and that in practice its base of participants is not as broad
 as desirable. Melbourne IT, a major stakeholder in the Australian
 Internet community and operator of the principal registry (.com.au)
 within the .au ccTLD, also expressed concern that auDA is a new,
 untested organization that may not prove effective in broadly
 representing all parts of the Internet community. Both Mr. Elz and
 Melbourne IT suggested that the management of the .au ccTLD would
 more appropriately be performed directly by the Australian Government.
 ...
 According to the design described in its constitution, auDA is
 well-suited to be inclusive of, and accountable to, the Australian
 Internet community and to operate through open, transparent, and
 inclusive processes. Mr. Elz's and Melbourne IT's concerns appear
 to be that auDA will not develop according to this design. These
 concerns, however, are obviated by the Australian Government's
 desire to have the .au ccTLD managed by the private sector,
 combined with the Government's commitments that it will ensure
 that auDA operates in an open, transparent, inclusive, and
 representative way.
 ...
 Upon conclusion of a mutually satisfactory agreement between ICANN
 and auDA reflecting the principles set forth in clause 10 of the
 GAC principles, adjusted as necessary to suit local circumstances,
 the .au ccTLD should be redelgated to auDA.

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

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

Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 00:28:46 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

On 31 Aug 2001, at 19:01, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> gTLDs would like autonomy also.
> 

Sure they do, Chuck, but they are "owned" by the USG.  Their autonomy is 
there - under the control of the TLD holder - DoC.  The others signed away 
their autonomy by allowing themselves to be granted a contract to operate 
the TLDs for a fixed number of years.  The ccTLDs have not done that to my 
knowlege, at least not yet.  In addition, on the IANA website it states that 
country code domains were created to be used by each individual country as 
they deemed necessary, although this is a bit misleading because they were 
assigned to individuals or entities within those countries and not to the 
countries themselves.

It is interesting, indeed, that the gTLDs want autonomy and wish to be 
compared to the ccTLDs when they are different animals.  .US is the ccTLD 
and it, too, should have autonomy as the other ccTLDs should.  As a ccTLD, 
.US is almost worthless as it stands right now.  It is being handled badly, 
IMO, and will be tired up in bureaucratic red tape for who knows how long.  
Whether it will become useful for the US public remains to be seen.

Leah

> 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: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 08:55:27 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: IANA Report on .au (Australia) redelegation

You know that ICANN was granted its' position based upon the same
assumption, its' paperwork looked good.  As it got into practice the
At-Large was suspended and it was determined to not follow the original
intent of the paperwork.  There are many now that argue to ignore the
paperwork altogether for various reasons.  I would implore all concerned
not to change a thing until there is an actually elected at large fully
operational board.  Lest they go down ICANNs path.

Eric

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> IANA Report on Request for Redelegation of the .au Top-Level Domain
> http://www.iana.org/reports/au-report-31aug01.htm
>
> Excerpts:
>  Upon its establishment in 1986, the .au ccTLD was delegated to Robert
>  Elz, a network programmer at the University of Melbourne.
>  ...
>  [T]he .au Domain Administration (auDA) was formed. On 15 November
>  1999, Mr. Elz sub-delegated to auDA the authority to manage the
>  .com.au namespace, which comprises approximately 85% of all domain
>  names within the .au ccTLD.
>  ...
>  The IANA's consultations with the Australian Internet community have
>  demonstrated substantial support for auDA's assumption of the role
>  as manager of the .au ccTLD. In consultations with the IANA, Mr. Elz
>  has acknowledged that the management of the .au ccTLD should be
>  transferred to a broadly supported organization.
>  ...
>  Mr. Elz, however, has expressed concern that auDA is still not fully
>  formed and that in practice its base of participants is not as broad
>  as desirable. Melbourne IT, a major stakeholder in the Australian
>  Internet community and operator of the principal registry (.com.au)
>  within the .au ccTLD, also expressed concern that auDA is a new,
>  untested organization that may not prove effective in broadly
>  representing all parts of the Internet community. Both Mr. Elz and
>  Melbourne IT suggested that the management of the .au ccTLD would
>  more appropriately be performed directly by the Australian Government.
>  ...
>  According to the design described in its constitution, auDA is
>  well-suited to be inclusive of, and accountable to, the Australian
>  Internet community and to operate through open, transparent, and
>  inclusive processes. Mr. Elz's and Melbourne IT's concerns appear
>  to be that auDA will not develop according to this design. These
>  concerns, however, are obviated by the Australian Government's
>  desire to have the .au ccTLD managed by the private sector,
>  combined with the Government's commitments that it will ensure
>  that auDA operates in an open, transparent, inclusive, and
>  representative way.
>  ...
>  Upon conclusion of a mutually satisfactory agreement between ICANN
>  and auDA reflecting the principles set forth in clause 10 of the
>  GAC principles, adjusted as necessary to suit local circumstances,
>  the .au ccTLD should be redelgated to auDA.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 18:31:44 +0200
From: Grégoire Seither <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: IANA Report on .au (Australia)

le 1/09/01 17:31, Alexander Svensson - < [email-masked] > écrivait :

> Upon its establishment in 1986, the .au ccTLD was delegated to Robert
> Elz, a network programmer at the University of Melbourne.

1986 ? Wow !!!! While we Froggies were still mucking aroung with 9600 bps
BBS and modem to modem networks (Calvacom), the Ozzies already had their
ccTLD.

Oz, not only Godzone, but always on the techno-edge... good on ya mate !

Unless its a typo.....

GregWAH

- --
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: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 09:54:02 -0800
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

I believe that 

1. icann should interact with  ccTLDs.
2. ccTLDs should inteact with ICANN.

The Internet is truly global. Both technicasl coordination and model
policy should be as consistent as possible.

This does not mean that "ICANN rules".

Here's an example, ICANN has UDRP, ccTLDs have, or will have "Local
DRP". Interaction will assure that each TLD has SOME kind of dispute
resolution policy, and that such policy is applied fairly.

Also, interaction and consultation between various constituencies and
Sos facilitates the security and stability of the global Internet

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Michael
Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 4:08 PM
To: Peter Dengate-Thrush
Cc: [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

- --
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: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 10:07:43 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

L Gallegos wrote:

> It is interesting, indeed, that the gTLDs want autonomy and wish to be
> compared to the ccTLDs when they are different animals.  .US is the ccTLD
> and it, too, should have autonomy as the other ccTLDs should.  As a ccTLD,
> .US is almost worthless as it stands right now.  It is being handled badly,
> IMO, and will be tired up in bureaucratic red tape for who knows how long.
> Whether it will become useful for the US public remains to be seen.
>
> Leah

It is quite useful. When wearing my attorney hat, I often have to search out
data on legal, administrative, organizational, etc., matters in various states,
and so far as I have seen, every U. S. state has web sites under the .us ccTLD
and, at least in Oregon, a lot of business that used to have to be carried out
with hard copies and snail mail can now be done on line.  There's also a lot of
Federal stuff, although many agencies, such as the Patent Office, have their
own .gov sites.  Credit should be given to the .us domain operators, and to
those making good use of that ccTLD.

Bill Lovell

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 10:40:13 -0800
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Montevideo GA meeting, 8 Sep 2001, agenda

Roberto, and all:

Regarding your "second one disturbing"

Disclaimer: I am speaking personally, as an NC member, but NOT for the
entire NC.

You say " I find severely disturbing that they are not interested in the
debate with the candidates."

I am VERY interested in debate with the candidates.

You say "Is the debate going on somewhere else?"

Yes, it is. It is happenning on the lists, with questions to the
candidates and their answers, position statements by the candidates, and
reference to the endorsements of the candidates.

The debate will also go on in our (ccTLD) face-to-face constituency
meeting. That is why I supported the idea of beginning the elections
AFTER the constituency meeting in montevideo. Because of language
diversity, it is helpful to have face-to-face constituency discussions
about the candidates.

You say " Or have the NC reps already made up their mind?"

I will not make a final decision on who to vote for until the first hour
of the vote. All inputs will be considered, the lists, the candidates
postings, and my constituents thoughts.

As for a telephone link, that is an excellent idea for last-minute
presentations by the candidates that can not be there in person.

A call in during the GA session would be most appropriate.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Roberto
Gaetano
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 11:30 PM
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,

Snip snip 

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: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 10:44:34 -0800
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Jefsey

Your posting makes a lot of senbse, particularly the "nicSO"

The ccTLDs need to maintain close contact with the other constituencies.
Perhaps the idea of ccTLD holding seates on the Names Council for policy
development would work. Assuming the ccTLDs had a SO, the ccTLD reps on
the NC would NOT participate in voting for NC-elected ICANN board
directors.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jefsey
Morfin
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 3:57 AM
To: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law; Peter Dengate-Thrush
Cc: [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

- --
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: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 10:49:27 -0800
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

This time, Leah, I agree completely with you!

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of L
Gallegos
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 2:47 AM
To: [email-masked]; Roberto Gaetano; [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

- --
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: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 10:50:43 -0800
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

What does "hive it off" mean ??

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Michael
Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 4:45 AM
To: Roberto Gaetano
Cc: [email-masked]; [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

- --
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 #716
************************