Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #720
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, September 3 2001          Volume 01 : Number 720

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

Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 21:09:50 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] More BC Shenanigans

On 18:35 02/09/01, [email-masked] said:
>The newly posted draft of the revised Business Constituency Charter
>http://www.bizconst.org/bccharter.htm conveniently eliminates the sectoral
>diversity requirement for NC reps, thereby assuring the Telcom sector
>continued domination in the Names Council.

Dear Danny,
I suppose you missed the following :-)

<quote>
It is therefore crucial that the Business Constituency remain independent 
from other constituencies whose primary role is to formulate views from the 
exclusive perspective of such service providers, as well as from other 
groups whose interests may not be aligned with business users.
</quote>

No ISP, Registrar, gTLD can be a Member of the BC. Marilyn Cade and Grant 
Forsyth companies are not in such businesses as to provide access to the 
Internet, to sell or provide domain name resgitration service.

>I guess that if they couldn't manage to get Marilyn Cade elected under the
>terms of their current Charter, it became necessary to revise their Charter
>accordingly. One has to wonder who drafted this new gerrymandered version?

Much like the previous charter. MCI is no more in telecom/internet business 
than ATT. So Mailyn has every reason to replace Theresa.
Anyway, Danny, Members have voted that proposition, haven't we? Oh, we have 
not, hmmmm...

>We still haven't had an answer to the question of whether Marilyn is legally
>entitled to vote in this upcoming DNSO Board election.  Somehow, that doesn't
>surprise me...

I promized my wife to go out and have some Champaign the day I vote at the 
BC. Thx to them I am saving my money :-)

Jefsey

- --
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: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 23:02:43 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] Re: Joker.com filing "common law" .info claims

On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, at 20:45 [=GMT+0200], Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> I would be interested in knowing how many ccTLD do not accept TLD transfer 
> as the AFNIC?

Do you mean transfer of a domain (SLD)?

> The only proper solution against cybesquatter IMO.

Really? Would they then not try to get rent for the name? Or to
collect money for the dropping of it, so that another party can get
it? 

Purposely squatting on a unique trademark is easily dealt with
through the UDRP. Unfortunately this procedure also hits others than
true cybersquatters, as has been pointed out time and again. Both
completely 'innocent' registrants and legitimate speculators. Then
speculators do not have many friends. A discussion about the 'ethics'
of domain name speculation would be most interesting. Even more so
when ideas will come up to auction expired names (which I would not
be surprised to see soon). In both cases the highest bidder gets a
name. The only difference is, who gets the money: a lucky speculator,
a lucky registrar, VeriSign, or ICANN?

- -- 
[email-masked]

> Jefsey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 10:51 02/09/01, William X Walsh said:
> >Sunday, Sunday, September 02, 2001, 1:41:31 AM, PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:
> > > Not that the thought of purchasing BofA.com and Nike.com didn't cross my
> > > mind more than once back when they were available, it just wasn't for me.
> >
> >There is a vast difference between registering a generic or non-famous
> >trademark related name and intentionally registering a trademarked
> >name with the intent of extorting money, though  :)
> >
> >
> >--
> >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
> 
> --
> 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: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 16:56:58 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Board Candidates' Session

Having been heavily committed elsewhere for the last week or so, I am now
catching up on developments on the lists and several hundred emails.

To the best of my knowledge, no funding has been made available by the DNSO
or other possible sources for Board candidates for travel to Montevideo,
hence I regret I will not there in person, but can confirm that I have sent
my contact details to the Secretariat for a telephone link, and look forward
to participating that way. For those who would like to put a face to the
name, www.internetstakeholders.com.

Regards,

Joanna

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")
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 installing the Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
 www.internetstakeholders.com.

on 8/31/01 8:13 PM, [email-masked] at [email-masked] wrote:

> 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: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 23:05:02 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nine Geographical Zones

Dear Raul,
On 23:44 02/09/01, Raul Echeberria said:
>At 06:09 PM 31/08/01 -0300, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote:
>>Dear Jefsey and GA,
>>And Central-America and Caribean?
>
>Hartmut:
>I share your concern. Beside that, this proposal over represent Europe and 
>Asia in relation with Africa and Latinamerica.

Your remark is great: to find the best balanced organization each area 
should defend its inetrests..
You have to consider the population, the GNP, the geography, the cultures, 
the network needs, the geopolitical organizations, the ICANN management.

The target is to have a "fair" representation not in term of democracy but 
in term of efficiency, i.e. for each area to be in the best position to 
obtain what is good for them and for all and to best organize for outreach 
at lesser cost.

Please provide support to your remark.
(My split North/South America is ALENA, not ALENA. I did not understand the 
question)

>>       - North-America
>>>      - Latin-America
>>>      - Western-Europe
>>>      - Eastern-Europe
>>>      - Western-Asia
>>>      - Eastern-Asia
>>>      - Pacific
>>>      - Africa
>>>      - Oceans

Jefsey

- --
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: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 21:40:57 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

At 05:09 29/08/01, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

>I think that this should be a central point in the next days, 
>pre-Montevideo. What do GA members think? Does the idea of an ALSO 
>obsolesce the request for an IDNH Constituency?

Roberto,

You question is a bit more than information-gathering on behalf of the NC 
Task Force. You appear to argue  that it does make our (re)quest obsolete.
At least you state that the argument for DNSO representation will be more 
difficult to make.
Mind you there was never anything wrong with the arguments. The problem was 
that they were not welcome.

The arguments that it does NOT make our request obsolete (was that the 
purpose of the ALSC draft?) are  compelling and are being made by Leah, 
DPF, Roeland and others here.
We do not have an ALSO and even if it eventually comes about, what 
influence will a bit of @large director election grandstanding  have on DN 
policymaking?

I know some people are hoping the petition for an IC will just go away, but 
as long as  the DNSO and its NC remains in existence and is not 
"obsolesced" itself, the Individual DN holders' representatives should have 
a place on it.

Their activity on the DNSO will be the accountability and the qualification 
that @large members will seek in their elected directors.
Call it a proving ground.

- --Joop

- --
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: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 17:26:38 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Aren't we really at a point now where Domain Names are really just a social and
not a technical factor.  And haven't we really always really been there.   How
long ago was 2001 space odessy and a computer that got a domain name, what was it
Hal?  Aren't we always trying to bring things and animals into our social
conscience.  People name parts of their body, their pets, their cars.  (the world
famous restaurant chain Hooters is ridiculously on point, Herbie the VW bug is
another)

So when we make policy regarding Domain Names let us be honest, all we are making
is social policy and that is governance.  So now ICANN either recognizes it
engages in social political governance or it continues to be idiotic.

Eric

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Michael,
> You right about IP function - IPv6 is the most complex thing we have to
> deal with.
>
> Regarding its relations with the DNS I think we should also strangle once
> for all the idea that the DNS is a way to provide an human readable form of
> the IP address. This prevents many from understanding many things and has
> lead to the underlying ida that the DN represented something valuable by
> its own.
>
> The IP address only helps with the access to the site. DNS and IP are now
> parallel addressing plans
> (IP using figures and DNS using the international naming scheme we devised
> in 1978). Knowing the site IP address does not necessarily permit to access
> a site. You may often need the CNAME.
>
> The Internet governance has youth problems from the ICANN attempt at
> embodying alone, and in using old stiff structures.
>
> - there need to be multiple governance centers for Internet governance
> stability
> - they need to cooperate to gain the Internet Participant's trust, for
> usage stability
> - they need to compete for better service and innovation
> - they need to be complementary in term of type of services, cultures,
> languages
>
> We are happy that ccTLDs and VeriSIgn keep close with the ICANN. We should
> work for other emerging governance centers - like China, Europe, Value
> Added Roots and probably some others -  keep close instead of rebuking
> them. We should also make sure that the ICANN structure does yeld to
> additional divides.
>
> Let abandon the hierarchical outdated visions. They are just downgrades of
> reality. Who wants don graded solutions?
>
> 1. constituencies are to represent stake holders specialized concerns. Each
> with its appropriate structure. Including representative organizations,
> concerned operations and dedicated individuals. Let accept that they are
> the basic ICANN components if you do not want to say Members because of
> local legal oddities. And let not object to them sharing into other
> governance centers. Value Added Roots definitely need to dialog with the
> IPC about TLD squatting and TM protection on business oiented  TLDs. Or
> Registrars about the new forms of Ownership or Membership Naming by some TLDs.
>
> Let help the emergence of the missing constituencies: Registrants,
> Individual Users, DNS developers, IP users, SMEs, etc...
>
> 2. SOs with their Council and their GA seem to be appropriate WG for the
> Constituencies to join forces on an as needed basis. Let ccTLDs for example
> share into ASO, in the DNSO as well as leading the nicSO. Let the
> Registrants participate to the nicSO. etc...
>
> 3. Let stop objecting the emergence of the new governance centers. Let take
> advantage from them. Competition and task distribution will help us all.
> ICANN wants to maintain what I name the AmerICANN Circus show round the
> planet? Let see if the VeriSign meetings in Herndon are or not taking some
> useful momentum. Would ICANN Staff object to talk there, I suppose no more
> that VeriSign people or Minc people to come in MdR. Look, I am not afraid
> being a BoD candidate while developing my own extended root - not because I
> want to fight the ICANN but because I want to help it growing and opening
> to the reality.
>
> Jefsey
>
> At 20:06 01/09/01, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> >I meant 'turn it into a separate, free-standing, body' (but the phrase was
> >perhaps ambiguous, as it might have implied continuing ICANN control,
> >sorry).
> >
> >I am coming to think this is also the answer for IP # function which
> >should be separate from the DNS function and from IANA.
> >
> >On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Peter de Blanc wrote:
> >
> > > 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

- --
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: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 18:18:04 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] geographicals

If you are going to stay geographically oriented then you have to
balance it with popular.

Why should I, a Norte Americano be able to vote for the rep. from
Europe?

Why should a man from down under be stuck with his rep, when he likes
Jefsey's position more?

Bad form and nonsensical.

There are models, like senate and house that we may borrow from, but
that one is all geographic and geographic populist.  Funny the term at
large usually means at large, not segmented.  Also funny, two of my
least favorite organizations use geographics for representation, Cosa
Nostra and UN.  So the only logical conclusion is that BoD members
elected by the at large or the GA have no geographic requirements.

Eric

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

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

Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 22:03:04 -0400
From: "Ladi" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] geographicals

Perhaps it's just me, but I always thought that part of the whole point
of the Internet is the loss/lessening/blurring of geographical
boundaries. There's reason why many of my friends and those I agree with
the most live outside of my time zone and why many of those I disgree
with a great deal live next door, no?

Why not let candidates and representatives stand on their own with their
own views? Let the best (wo)man with the most popular views win. If an
"area" -- ie, a group with a certain view -- feels underrepresented,
then they can recruit new members to vote and to represent. Isn't this
what happened to an extent in the last @large elections with some of the
European candidates? 

Eric mentions the senate and the house of representatives as a model.
Perhaps an acceptable compromise would use the complete congress as a
model and create a body of representatives using geographical divisions
and another that ignores them. Not that I particularly like more
processes to get anything done, but it might make the most people happy.

Just MHO,

~Ladi

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Eric
Dierker
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 9:18 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] geographicals

If you are going to stay geographically oriented then you have to
balance it with popular.

Why should I, a Norte Americano be able to vote for the rep. from
Europe?

Why should a man from down under be stuck with his rep, when he likes
Jefsey's position more?

Bad form and nonsensical.

There are models, like senate and house that we may borrow from, but
that one is all geographic and geographic populist.  Funny the term at
large usually means at large, not segmented.  Also funny, two of my
least favorite organizations use geographics for representation, Cosa
Nostra and UN.  So the only logical conclusion is that BoD members
elected by the at large or the GA have no geographic requirements.

Eric

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 04:49:56 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] geographicals

On 04:03 03/09/01, Ladi said:
>Perhaps an acceptable compromise would use the complete congress as a
>model and create a body of representatives using geographical divisions
>and another that ignores them. Not that I particularly like more
>processes to get anything done, but it might make the most people happy.

Dear Ladi,
as you may have noted this is exactly what the MoU, every @large 
organization and Danny proposes.

9 Directors for the netwide concerns by the infrastructure oriented SOs.
9 Directors for the stakeholders. Currently 5 on a geographical basis and 4 
(BoD squatters, hardly elected) on and ad-hoc basis. Danny proposes 9 on a 
geographical basis.
1 Director by the Staff.

The problem with the current areas is their population/economical/network 
specific unbalance.

IMHO you concern is not appropriate: the target is not to have anyone 
represented. But to make sure a) the Directors are the most diversified in 
their origins b) proximity ties among @large people may develop.

Jefsey

- --
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: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 20:00:11 -0800
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

I concur (agree) with Elisabeth's comments here.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Elisabeth Porteneuve
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 9:24 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

The ccTLDs represent Local Internet Communities, and contrary to the
gTLD Registries, ccTLD Registries do not operate under the US law and
jurisdiction, but under national law and jurisdiction.

This is the main and most important reason.

The ccTLD form the genuine global worldwide network, using all
languages, 
implemented in all countries, operating a large spectra of business
models.

Note that ccTLD has been very positive to ICANN creation, sending money
and expecting the real international body for all Registries. Since two
years the ccTLD has been contributing 35% of ICANN budget, 1.5 million
US dollars, all from foreign countries ! During the same two years ICANN
Staff spent all their time on contracts 
with gTLD registries and registrars.

I agree with you Chuck: the ccTLD are certainly not really very 
different from gTLD, they demand equal considerations within ICANN.

The real stability of global Internet depends on all components, not
only 3+7=10 gTLD, but also 242 ccTLD.

Elisabeth
- --

- -----Original Message-----
>From [email-masked] Sun Sep  2 15:52 MET 2001
Message-ID:
<[email-masked]>
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 09:40:50 -0400 

Probably over one third of the ccTLDs are really not very different from
the gTLDs.  Also, sTLDs (one subset of gTLDs) are similar to many of the
restricted ccTLDs in that they both have organizations implementing
policy over TLD registrations.

I understand that it is convenient at this point in time for those
wanting a separate ccSO to argue that they are different, and some may
really be quite different at this point in time, but even that could
change in the future. If they want to play in the global Internet, I
contend that they are more like gTLDs than different.  If they want to
set up their own private network within their region of control, then
they would not need access to the global Internet and then it could be
justified that they are very different.

Chuck     

- -----Original Message-----
From: L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 12:29 AM
To: [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
- --
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: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 20:33:07 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Sunday, Sunday, September 02, 2001, 9:00:11 PM, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> I concur (agree) with Elisabeth's comments here.

> Peter de Blanc

Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
> The ccTLDs represent Local Internet Communities, and contrary to the
> gTLD Registries, ccTLD Registries do not operate under the US law and
> jurisdiction, but under national law and jurisdiction.

But in fact, the ccTLD was delegated under an implied contract that is
subject to US Law.  So in effect, ccTLDs are, to a limited degree,
subject to US Law.

> I agree with you Chuck: the ccTLD are certainly not really very
> different from gTLD, they demand equal considerations within ICANN.

I think the ccTLDs fail to see the tremendous pressure that ICANN
was under with regard to gTLD issues.  That was the most pressing
thing before them, and was being used as a measure of their ability to
handle the job.

The reality is that ICANN didn't have much choice but to make gTLD
issues a top priority.  And as a rule, most of the ccTLDs opposed the
creation of new gTLDs, so the split between ICANN and the ccTLDs on
this issue isn't really very surprising.

But, let's get some answers from the ccTLD community.

What are these issues that the ccTLD community feels have been
neglected?  Specifics please.  In this way, the ccTLD community can
start taking an active roll in advancing awareness of those issues.

Perhaps Peter and Elisabeth could put up a web page describing some of
the ccTLD related issues that they feel ICANN should be addressing,
and then the GA, as a part of the DNSO (where those issues belong) can
begin the process of developing recommendations and recommended policy
to cover to them.

- -- 
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: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 00:40:00 -0700
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

William X Walsh wrote:

> What are these issues that the ccTLD community feels have been
> neglected?  Specifics please.  In this way, the ccTLD community can
> start taking an active roll in advancing awareness of those issues.
>
> Perhaps Peter and Elisabeth could put up a web page describing some of
> the ccTLD related issues that they feel ICANN should be addressing,
> and then the GA, as a part of the DNSO (where those issues belong) can
> begin the process of developing recommendations and recommended policy
> to cover to them.

I will second WXW's call for a description of the specific ccTLD related
issues whch ICANN ought to be addressing.  I think the GA is the perfect place
to hear such matters.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 23:31:28 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Status of the Review Task Force

Sotiris,

Don't take this wrong but I do not like where this is going!

I for one Scarlet don't give a damn.  That is I do not care what a bunch of fat
cat ccTLD managers are interested in.  To date I have yet see one speak up and say
"this is what my people want, need and are going to get".  When I hear one of them
refer to the ccTLD they are involved in as belonging to the people as a public
resource to be exploited and used for the benefit of their respective country's'
people then I will care.  Until then I do not see them as more than wanna be baby
Verisigns.

I beg any of you involved to tell me otherwise and then I will publicly praise and
market your great cause.

(yes I am trying to tweak some ccTLDs into commitment)

Eric

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> William X Walsh wrote:
>
> > What are these issues that the ccTLD community feels have been
> > neglected?  Specifics please.  In this way, the ccTLD community can
> > start taking an active roll in advancing awareness of those issues.
> >
> > Perhaps Peter and Elisabeth could put up a web page describing some of
> > the ccTLD related issues that they feel ICANN should be addressing,
> > and then the GA, as a part of the DNSO (where those issues belong) can
> > begin the process of developing recommendations and recommended policy
> > to cover to them.
>
> I will second WXW's call for a description of the specific ccTLD related
> issues whch ICANN ought to be addressing.  I think the GA is the perfect place
> to hear such matters.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> --
> 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 #720
************************